Taking natural too far

[spidermom]

I ran across an argument for using nothing sudsy on skin or hair that contained the phrase "nobody is born with a bottle of shampoo in the hand" as if that alone is proof that we shouldn't have it, and that's been bothering the crap out of me ever since. I don't remember who said it and this isn't an attack on a person but a challenge to the idea.

Nobody is born with soap in the hand either, but the invention and use of it has been invaluable in stopping the spread of disease through hospital wards. Back in the 1800s, nobody washed their hands or changed filthy clothing between patients. Infection spread very quickly through hospital populations, causing a lot of preventable death and misery. Should we cease the use of soap and hand washing because "it isn't natural". Nobody is born with braces on their teeth, either, but my granddaughter has a small mouth and would end up with teeth coming in sideways if spacing isn't corrected now. In an all natural world, she would be stuck with too many teeth and not enough mouth, and I'm sure that wouldn't enhance her life.

My point is this. Maybe humans were born with such big brains so that we could think and invent solutions to our problems. For me, oily hair is a problem, and I'm glad for the shampoo; I'm glad for the hand washing; I'm glad for the braces; I'm glad for many other inventions that give me a lifespan longer than 30 years.

[nalgena]

Nobody is born with their clothes on either. Not even in Yakutsk.

[Sarahlabyrinth]

I ran across an argument for using nothing sudsy on skin or hair that contained the phrase "nobody is born with a bottle of shampoo in the hand" as if that alone is proof that we shouldn't have it, and that's been bothering the crap out of me ever since. I don't remember who said it and this isn't an attack on a person but a challenge to the idea.

Nobody is born with soap in the hand either, but the invention and use of it has been invaluable in stopping the spread of disease through hospital wards. Back in the 1800s, nobody washed their hands or changed filthy clothing between patients. Infection spread very quickly through hospital populations, causing a lot of preventable death and misery. Should we cease the use of soap and hand washing because "it isn't natural". Nobody is born with braces on their teeth, either, but my granddaughter has a small mouth and would end up with teeth coming in sideways if spacing isn't corrected now. In an all natural world, she would be stuck with too many teeth and not enough mouth, and I'm sure that wouldn't enhance her life.

My point is this. Maybe humans were born with such big brains so that we could think and invent solutions to our problems. For me, oily hair is a problem, and I'm glad for the shampoo; I'm glad for the hand washing; I'm glad for the braces; I'm glad for many other inventions that give me a lifespan longer than 30 years.

Very true, and well said. Sometimes "natural" can be taken too far. Not everything "natural" is good for us.

[MsPharaohMoan]

Well said! The word natural is tossed around so much right now (food, beauty industry) that it's lost all meaning. Living in a country that hardly regulate the advertising and labeling of beauty products it just feels like a marketing ploy to tug at the heartstrings of a target audience. One woman's opinion...

[gthlvrmx]

Personally, if someone is causing harm to themselves or others through their actions, then maybe that individual should take a closer look at their actions and change how they go about things. Also, if they are not happy with what they do, why bother?
Someone told me that arsenic can be found in nature. Not everything natural, or found in nature, is safe and just because something is synthetic doesn't mean it's unsafe.

[Parrot]

I think common sense applies to things that are unnatural but of great benefit and things that are unnatural and unnecessary. I avoid the latter. My general rule of thumb (for beauty products) is if I wouldn't put it in my body, I don't put it on my body either. I don't use any beauty products, soaps, lotions or hair products on a consistent basis that I do not make myself from the base ingredients, 99% of which one could literally eat. I even make my own toothpaste. But I'll still admit some modern not-so-natural products are of great benefit, like if you get a cut and put some neosporin on it or get paint on your hands and use some LAVA soap to get it off or something. Things like hair products or compulsively using soaps and lotions and cosmetics is simply not for me. Then again, to each his/her own.

[XiaoBaiTu]

This is a good perspective. I don't know about anyone else, but I personally came on here and got super excited about so many new, natural, things to try that I went a bit overboard. Also, time is a big issue. I'm a college student and don't have the time to go to the store every time I read about something new I can do with my hair, or access to a kitchen or even bowls that I could use to mix up my own stuff in.

[shrinkingviolet]

I agree, but I supoose the same can be said about taking... erm.. artifical?... too far. Over-cleansing, using a different "hygiene" product for every single part of the body. etc.

[Arctic]

I ran across an argument for using nothing sudsy on skin or hair that contained the phrase "nobody is born with a bottle of shampoo in the hand" as if that alone is proof that we shouldn't have it, and that's been bothering the crap out of me ever since. I don't remember who said it and this isn't an attack on a person but a challenge to the idea.

Nobody is born with soap in the hand either, but the invention and use of it has been invaluable in stopping the spread of disease through hospital wards. Back in the 1800s, nobody washed their hands or changed filthy clothing between patients. Infection spread very quickly through hospital populations, causing a lot of preventable death and misery. Should we cease the use of soap and hand washing because "it isn't natural". Nobody is born with braces on their teeth, either, but my granddaughter has a small mouth and would end up with teeth coming in sideways if spacing isn't corrected now. In an all natural world, she would be stuck with too many teeth and not enough mouth, and I'm sure that wouldn't enhance her life.

My point is this. Maybe humans were born with such big brains so that we could think and invent solutions to our problems. For me, oily hair is a problem, and I'm glad for the shampoo; I'm glad for the hand washing; I'm glad for the braces; I'm glad for many other inventions that give me a lifespan longer than 30 years.

I'm with you on this Spidermom. I don't mind people using different methods and stuff on theirselves or have ideologies they live by in general in their life. But I do mind the kind of judgemental, preachy, holier than though, "I know best and what works for me should work for all" attitudes towards people with different routines, methods, hair and skin types, specific problems and challenges, ideologies, and lifestyles. These attitudes often accompany these comments.

This happens on all directions, I am sure the person not wanting to use shampoo has gotten his/her share of judgemental attitudes from those with more normative (in our time and society) washing habits.

[catasa]

I ran across an argument for using nothing sudsy on skin or hair that contained the phrase "nobody is born with a bottle of shampoo in the hand" as if that alone is proof that we shouldn't have it, and that's been bothering the crap out of me ever since. I don't remember who said it and this isn't an attack on a person but a challenge to the idea.

Nobody is born with soap in the hand either, but the invention and use of it has been invaluable in stopping the spread of disease through hospital wards. Back in the 1800s, nobody washed their hands or changed filthy clothing between patients. Infection spread very quickly through hospital populations, causing a lot of preventable death and misery. Should we cease the use of soap and hand washing because "it isn't natural". Nobody is born with braces on their teeth, either, but my granddaughter has a small mouth and would end up with teeth coming in sideways if spacing isn't corrected now. In an all natural world, she would be stuck with too many teeth and not enough mouth, and I'm sure that wouldn't enhance her life.

My point is this. Maybe humans were born with such big brains so that we could think and invent solutions to our problems. For me, oily hair is a problem, and I'm glad for the shampoo; I'm glad for the hand washing; I'm glad for the braces; I'm glad for many other inventions that give me a lifespan longer than 30 years.


I agree, but I supoose the same can be said about taking... erm.. artifical?... too far. Over-cleansing, using a different "hygiene" product for every single part of the body. etc.

I agree with you both! My "standpoint" (if you can call it that) is to simply use what seems to work for my skin and body, and at the same time is as simple as possible. My motivation for using natural things for certain areas is mostly my finicky skin and hair, without that I probably wouldn´t bother and just keep using mainstream commercial things. It´s no religious thing for me :) Then again, regarding the beauty market, I do get rather irritated, to put it lightly, with all the not so necessary products that are sold as miracle cures for this and that... :rolleyes:

ETA: regarding "natural"/organic commercial products with plant extracts etc, I have much more often had bad reactions to them than to "non-natural" products. As others have said, natural is not auomatically safe. I say above that I use natural products due to finicky skin, but I don´t mean natural commercial products, I mean pure honey, pure mineral oil (though that is not counted as really "natural" I guess) etc, this is what works for me. I do use a "natural" commercial deodorant, but it took a lot of trial and error to find one that didn´t irritate my skin.

[Hairkay]

I agree that the word "natural" can be overused. I never go for something just because it's natural. I have to consider if it's convenient to me, if I may have an allergic reaction to it, how economical it is or it's something that appeals to me. I don't use soap or soap products (shampoo included), conditioners, deodorants etc on my self simply because I'm allergic to them. I didn't choose it as a lifestyle.

I think some can go overboard and condescending both ways, some on being "natural" others on being "hyper hygienic". I even recall a chat with someone who does have eczema who told me her doc recommended not using soap but she refused because for her the only way she would call her hands clean was to use soap, she didn't see the alternative emollient as cleansing enough. That's her choice to continue causing herself harm and it seems that her skin condition never went beyond mild irritation so she could afford to take that risk. I've had some imply and outright say that I should use soap no matter what and forget the alternative that I carry around everywhere. Since I'm the one who would suffer I did not listen to them and they let their disgust show.

Sometimes even a close friend gets a bit judgemental. In her opinion the word "organic" overused like "natural" solves everything. I should try organic soap. It took years for her to get it that I'll still be allergic to it and it would still cause me harm. She once tried to snatch a pint of milk off me in the supermarket because it didn't have the organic label. I took it back and told her I'd be buying exclusively organic when I have organic money to pay for it. I was on a very tight budget then and not sure when I would get some work.

We're a variety of people and different things work for different people. There is no one size/solution for all.

[lapushka]

Total baloney.

Yes you can go overboard with promoting all things natural. When I came on here, I wanted to go natural as well with my haircare, why, because back then it was a different atmosphere around here, silicones and sulfates were vilified to a great extent. Now it's more an atmosphere of YMMV. And I like that much much better. It just didn't work for me. So what am I supposed to do? Force my scalp? Live with the flakes and the itching? I don't think so. I have SD and sometimes I have to bust out the Nizoral 2%. And the rest of the time it's sulfates and silicones.

If you follow the same "natural" reasoning, nobody would be able to take medications either.

Honey, we're out of the Dark Ages, and have been, a long long time.


Nobody is born with braces on their teeth, either, but my granddaughter has a small mouth and would end up with teeth coming in sideways if spacing isn't corrected now. In an all natural world, she would be stuck with too many teeth and not enough mouth, and I'm sure that wouldn't enhance her life.

I had the same thing. My first teeth refused to fall out (still had my front teeth at age eight) and I had a small mouth and too many teeth. My first teeth had to all be pulled out, because the "new" ones were already coming through. I had 4 braces, 3 loose ones, and 1 fixed set. I saw a lot of dentists (and I have extreme fear of dentists).

[Sarahm]

Totally agree.. I always get frustrated when people say "People have been using X (some natural remedy) to treat X (some problem) for three centuries now. So it must work, right?

No.

Science is not the enemy

[Inga-Marjukka]

I don't really look for what's natural when searching hair products. I have such bad seasons of atopic eczema that even innocent natural products can make it so much worse very quickly. Thankfully that has gotten 99 % easier now I'm living away from my parents and our two dogs who I've become allergic to. Once at a bad season, I washed my hair with a Flow Cosmetics Salt Mud and Clay-shampoo bar and had to go to the doctor's the next day because my face was bleeding in places and it hurt to move my mouth. shudder: Whereas my mum (no atopic skin, no eczema) used it happily. (I have since tried that shampoo bar and it has done no harm, so it was just my super sensitive skin playing up).

Anyway, this is what I mean. All these skin problems mean that I have to play it safe. I'm very doubtful of natural stuffs in general because for me, the milder and more chemical, the safer. When I first started LHC:ing I sort of felt this pressure to do natural stuff etc and wash only with water and that shampoos and COs are bad for your hair whatever they contain. It's so personal because everyone's hair is different, that I don't think it's anyone else's task gallop to the scene on their high horse to start preaching about what to do and what not to do. There are loads of poisonous and irritating substances in plants too, and they're not automatically better for everybody because they're "natural".

[Nique1202]

Yeah, if natural works for some people, that's great, but it will not work for everybody. Some folks do great on WO or SO or with soap-based shampoo bars or whatever, but not everyone is the same and you can't say for sure that what you do is going to be good for anyone else just because it works for you, and intruding on someone's questions saying that sulfates are poison or whatever can be dangerous in some cases like if someone has bad SD flareups when their scalp gets too dirty.

Some folks need all those different products and some folks don't, but either way it's nobody's place to judge someone else's choice of hair cleansing methods (or food, as in the organic example given in a previous comment). If it makes you happy with your hair, then you do you.

[lapushka]

Yeah, if natural works for some people, that's great, but it will not work for everybody. Some folks do great on WO or SO or with soap-based shampoo bars or whatever, but not everyone is the same and you can't say for sure that what you do is going to be good for anyone else just because it works for you, and intruding on someone's questions saying that sulfates are poison or whatever can be dangerous in some cases like if someone has bad SD flareups when their scalp gets too dirty.

Some folks need all those different products and some folks don't, but either way it's nobody's place to judge someone else's choice of hair cleansing methods (or food, as in the organic example given in a previous comment). If it makes you happy with your hair, then you do you.

Yes this. ^^ I have SD (on and off) and after about 30 years of living with it (I'm almost 44 now), I found that harsh sulfates actually are the thing that is keeping it at bay most times. I have been doing okay with my SD for a number of years now, but that doesn't mean that I can't get bouts of it, if I don't maintain my scalp properly and use those harsh sulfates. I might switch my shampoos around, but I can't do that too too much. So far Pantene & Herbal Essences (the harshest out there) have been doing wonders for me. I hope they don't ever go "milder" because that would probably suck.

[RavennaNight]

A lot of this extreme "only natural is good" ideology has stemmed from a complete distrust in modern science. It's not just fear, it's distrust because there is so much corruption between the large corporations who produce modern products and government. So that leads to the flawed thinking that anything made in a modern, "sciencey" way must be horribly cancer causing and planet destroying. It's the same flawed thinking that eschews modern medicine because some pharmaceutical companies are corrupt. If you follow these ideas back far enough you find yourself amongst conspiracy theories of all kinds, it's backwards thinking.

[lapushka]

A lot of this extreme "only natural is good" ideology has stemmed from a complete distrust in modern science. It's not just fear, it's distrust because there is so much corruption between the large corporations who produce modern products and government. So that leads to the flawed thinking that anything made in a modern, "sciencey" way must be horribly cancer causing and planet destroying. It's the same flawed thinking that eschews modern medicine because some pharmaceutical companies are corrupt. If you follow these ideas back far enough you find yourself amongst conspiracy theories of all kinds, it's backwards thinking.

Hear hear! :D :thumbsup:

[Horrorpops]

That argument is used for so many stupid things. Humanity has done so well because we adapt our environment to our needs, not just adapt to our environment.

I'm with you, we weren't born with antibiotics, clothes, airplanes etc but our lives are undoubtedly better with them. Just ask anyone who has had to walk naked through the Arctic ;)

RavennaNight exactly!

[Arctic]

Just ask anyone who has had to walk naked through the Arctic ;)

Oh no, my secret personal life has been revealed! :flasher:

[Horrorpops]

Oh no, my secret personal life has been revealed! :flasher:

:laugh: :eyebrows: haha you've been exposed!

[Mimha]

Once again people go to the extreme : when I said that "nobody is born with a bottle of shampoo" I didn't mean to stop using shampoo at all :rolleyes: I wanted to attract the people attention on the fact that we take shampoo and all the modern stuff for granted and we do not have any measure anymore. Of course shampoo is useful, and of course I am happy to use it myself. What I meant was to REALIZE that we are taken in a vortex of consumption. When antibiotics were discovered, they were used scarcely, and for severe cases only, and they saved many lives. Now, they have become part of the "basics" that a doctor gives on prescription as soon as somebody gets a cough, and THIS a disaster, not the antibiotics or the shampoo per se. Infections are getting so much resistant that soon no antibiotics will be able to kill them without killing you as well. (I have worked many years in the humanitarian war frame, if this can help understand). Today tuberculosis has become almost uneradicable due to the immoderate use we have done of antibiotics. Same problem with phytosanitary products. (I also have a degree in earth sciences and work in a research center, just to say that I'm not talking out of the blue). The actual fear we have of the micro-organisms as being the enemy to kill has made us completely neglect the useful ones that we kill together with the bad ones. Result : more and more digestive problem (intestinal flora unable to digest anymore : I have to struggle with every single day of my life), food intolerances, severe allergies, psoriasis, eczemas, etc. and with all this : hair loss and all the scalp problems. The immoderate use of chemical is slowly but definitely interfering with the natural balance of every creature on Earth, being it an algae, a bird, a bee, a man or a mushroom.

Cool down ladies : what I said was to be conscious of what we do, the pros and cons, the advantages and the consequences too, of all those stuff. Shampoo is practical and nice to use, and there are some low impact brands. We have the choice. We can use them moderately, diluting them for the benefit of both our hair, money and the environment. That's all what I wanted to say. When I read or see on internet that some people use a full bottle of shampoo or conditioner a week for whatever good reasons, it just drives me mad. Nobody needs that. (And the environment neither !)

The main problem in our society of consumption is that when we have a problem we look for a remedy under the form of "one more thing to take or use" : a pill, a shampoo or whatever. Whereas we should first ask ourselves the question if - instead of buying one more stuff and add it to the pile - we should not first start to reduce the use of something else ? The solution is very often in reducing or stopping something. Not in adding. Not want itchy scalp ? What about stopping all added sugar ? It works ! (Among other things^^). But hey, who wants to do this ? (Only crazy Mimha because she is sick and has no other alternative^^). It's so much easier to buy one more bottle of shampoo ! That's what I wanted to say by "you are not born with a bottle of shampoo" : your scalp is not meant to be cleared of all its sebum. So if you use shampoo, do it moderately because otherwise you are not going to benefit of it anymore. Your shampoo will end up disrupting your scalp balance. Which I can see every single day in this forum : People in despair with scalp problems due to over washing (and using plenty of useless hair stuff they would not need to use if they had not destroyed their scalp balance in the first place). In the old time it was the other way round : people had scalp problems due to their lack of hygiene. I don't mean to go back to that, of course. I mean to be reasonable. Personally, I had no choice but to reduce so many things in my life, because of health problems. Things that I had never thought of before. Now that I realize the tremendous benefits of these changes on me (my hair is just one example, but a very good one), I can't stay silent when I see people who don't have the same experience of a balance disorder, be it digestive or skin/hair related. Each human being is a small ecosystem in itself, but we are most of the time not conscious of it. We take it for granted that all the nice products made by the industry can be used immoderately and without consequences, but it is not true. Sooner or later, we'll all have to pay the bill of the Too Much. I have already started paying mine, and I'm afraid I'll have to pay until my last day. That's why I say this.

[Mega Moose]

True true! While I have found something natural that works for my hair and I'm very happy about it, shampoo probably isn't hurting most people who don't have sensitivities or allergies. And some people are worried about it maybe causing cancer, but I handle chemotherapy for a living so I feel like the danger is minimal compared to other things I deal with. XD Anyway, just do what works and allows you to be the most comfortable. It's fine to want to do things naturally (like I try to do in my time outside of work), but if someone decides they're happy with not so natural products, go for it. :) Life is too short to squabble about trivial things.

[lapushka]

Now, they have become part of the "basics" that a doctor gives on prescription as soon as somebody gets a cough, and THIS a disaster, not the antibiotics or the shampoo per se. Infections are getting so much resistant that soon no antibiotics will be able to kill them without killing you as well. (I have worked many years in the humanitarian war frame, if this can help understand). Today tuberculosis has become almost uneradicable due to the immoderate use we have done of antibiotics.

You might be quite misinformed. At least in this country they sounded the alarm bells on that more than a few decades ago, and AB are only prescribed when NEEDED, when there is a bacterial infection along with a virus. And no, that is not excessive use!

I don't agree with the rest of what you said, sorry.

[Kiiruna]

This is ot, but actually they prescribe AB too easily. Most of infections are caused by virus's. People want AB because they want to be treated, even though it's completely useless to eat AB to virus infection. People just get mad when they go to doctor, who then says "sorry, it's a virus, you have to wait another week". Way too many times I've had antibiotics without checking c-reactive protein from my blood.
Especially children eat a lot of AB to otitis and sinusitis, because their parents get angry otherwise. Eating AB for virus infections has gone down a bit, but it's still definitely happening too much.

Even worse is that people start to eat AB, then they feel better and quit. If you are prescribed AB, eat them all. Quitting in the middle of medication makes bacteria more resistant to AB, which sucks.

[Mega Moose]

Hooo boy. I only looked at the first page of the thread and didn't notice how upset people had gotten until just now. I just want to make it known that I wish to remain on good terms with everyone, and hope I offended nobody. :) The natural living vs use of conventional products thing is a choice that's up to each individual person, and people make different choices for different reasons, and I can respect the decision to use the not natural option, even if that's not what I want to do for myself (although my decision to go "all natural" stems more from some deep seated need to be extremely independent and to feel like I can do whatever I want on my own. But that's another story. XD).

[lapushka]

Hooo boy. I only looked at the first page of the thread and didn't notice how upset people had gotten until just now. I just want to make it known that I wish to remain on good terms with everyone, and hope I offended nobody. :) The natural living vs use of conventional products thing is a choice that's up to each individual person, and people make different choices for different reasons, and I can respect the decision to use the not natural option, even if that's not what I want to do for myself (although my decision to go "all natural" stems more from some deep seated need to be extremely independent and to feel like I can do whatever I want on my own. But that's another story. XD).

Haha, it's not gone haywire yet. :lol:

[Robot Ninja]

Living in houses and using electricity aren't natural either, so maybe those crunchy granola hippie bloggers should get off the internet and go back to living in trees.


You might be quite misinformed. At least in this country they sounded the alarm bells on that more than a few decades ago, and AB are only prescribed when NEEDED, when there is a bacterial infection along with a virus. And no, that is not excessive use!


Well in this country they're still being overprescribed. Fortunately, there's pushback from responsible doctors who will flat out tell you "it's a virus, you just have to wait it out, buy some orange juice and go back to bed. No, I'm not giving you antibiotics, because IT WON'T HELP." We also have doctors and pharmacists telling people to make sure they take the whole course of antibiotics when they are prescribed, even if you start to feel better. Whether people listen or not is another story, but at least there's an attempt being made to educate people.

[lapushka]

Living in houses and using electricity aren't natural either, so maybe those crunchy granola hippie bloggers should get off the internet and go back to living in trees.

Yeah they do seem to have internet. :rolleyes: :lol:


Well in this country they're still being overprescribed. Fortunately, there's pushback from responsible doctors who will flat out tell you "it's a virus, you just have to wait it out, buy some orange juice and go back to bed. No, I'm not giving you antibiotics, because IT WON'T HELP." We also have doctors and pharmacists telling people to make sure they take the whole course of antibiotics when they are prescribed, even if you start to feel better. Whether people listen or not is another story, but at least there's an attempt being made to educate people.

In Belgium I remember this being broadcast about 2 decades ago. It's then when it all kind of changed and people slowly started to learn the difference between a virus and a bacterial infection. But when it's bacterial... nothing you can do. If it's in your throat and ears and you're oozing stuff... too late. It well and truly becomes a necessity then.

[spidermom]

The medical clinic that I go to is careful about prescribing antibiotics but will prescribe medications to ease symptoms. It does seem that most people who go to the doctor want to be given something to make them feel better.

I do agree with you, Mimha, on not going overboard with shampoos, cosmetics, lotions, etc. I almost always dilute my shampoo, and I reuse, repurpose, and recycle as much as I can. I'm cognizant of the fact that I'm leaving a footprint on this earth, and I don't want to be too harsh about it.

[Curly276mom]

I'm new here. And one if the things I love about this place is there is a place for everyone. I'm water only and I have one thing I have learned is that cleaning without commercial products is not not cleaning. The cleaning process is still a cleaning process, it is just a different process.

Modern hygiene products are less about science and more about business. Big business. And the art of marketing. And teaching us to not trust our bodies. And I'm personally exhausted by the noise and the media and the rest so I'm opting out. Does that mean I'm disgusting? Nope. Just different. And if you ever want to give it a go I would be happy to help. The transition period is hard, and I can understand how people would mistakenly assume that the yuckiness of transition is actually what the system always feels like. But it doesn't. Successfully making it through my transition has cleared up my SD (which I had been battling for many many years).

I hope people can find it in their hearts to embrace the crunchy corner of this community. You don't have to agree. You don't have to try those systems. But please don't exclude or try to shame us.

[lapushka]

I hope people can find it in their hearts to embrace the crunchy corner of this community. You don't have to agree. You don't have to try those systems. But please don't exclude or try to shame us.

I'm not saying other methods or WO or SO are "crunchy". Not at all. :)

[spidermom]

"Teaching us not to trust our bodies" Really? What does that even mean?

[Robot Ninja]

I hope people can find it in their hearts to embrace the crunchy corner of this community. You don't have to agree. You don't have to try those systems. But please don't exclude or try to shame us.

If it works for you, that's great. If you, personally, wish to use as few products as possible, that's your choice. But your method is not inherently superior to methods that rely on commercial products, and it certainly isn't for everyone. It's the people that push SO/WO/baking soda/organic shampoo bars as something everyone should use and get up on their moral high horse about it that I have a problem with. And people who willfully spread bad information because the facts don't line up with their own personal worldview, like a lot of those "all natural" evangelists do, just cheese me off in general.

[humble_knight]

Cool down ladies : what I said was to be conscious of what we do, the pros and cons, the advantages and the consequences too, of all those stuff. Shampoo is practical and nice to use, and there are some low impact brands. We have the choice. We can use them moderately, diluting them for the benefit of both our hair, money and the environment. That's all what I wanted to say. When I read or see on internet that some people use a full bottle of shampoo or conditioner a week for whatever good reasons, it just drives me mad. Nobody needs that. (And the environment neither !)

The main problem in our society of consumption is that when we have a problem we look for a remedy under the form of "one more thing to take or use" : a pill, a shampoo or whatever. Whereas we should first ask ourselves the question if - instead of buying one more stuff and add it to the pile - we should not first start to reduce the use of something else ? The solution is very often in reducing or stopping something. Not in adding. Not want itchy scalp ? What about stopping all added sugar ? It works ! (Among other things^^). But hey, who wants to do this ? (Only crazy Mimha because she is sick and has no other alternative^^). It's so much easier to buy one more bottle of shampoo ! That's what I wanted to say by "you are not born with a bottle of shampoo" : your scalp is not meant to be cleared of all its sebum. So if you use shampoo, do it moderately because otherwise you are not going to benefit of it anymore. Your shampoo will end up disrupting your scalp balance. Which I can see every single day in this forum : People in despair with scalp problems due to over washing (and using plenty of useless hair stuff they would not need to use if they had not destroyed their scalp balance in the first place). In the old time it was the other way round : people had scalp problems due to their lack of hygiene. I don't mean to go back to that, of course.

Not a lady (if I were I'd be a lady of the night :face:) but I hope you don't feel you're crazy because you expressed your opinions. One of the unique things about this community is that there are many highly-educated professionals, and people with strong opinions who enjoy expressing them (as they should in a free community!). Also, the bit about societies is difficult because this community covers basically the entire planet. Which society? Do people in other societies even care about the same problems? Keep expressing your opinions and feeling the warmth of belonging to this community. That is my :twocents::blossom:

[SparrowWings]

... When I read or see on internet that some people use a full bottle of shampoo or conditioner a week...
Good grief, how can anyone possibly use that much that fast? Unless they're using sample-size bottles, maybe... Otherwise, they must be literally pouring the stuff down the drain!

That is one thing that has always perplexed me, though, the amount of shampoo people seem to 'typically' go through. I have never diluted shampoo (probably should, but that's another topic), but even so, I don't think my mom and I combined went through more than a bottle every 6 months, at the height of my over-usage as a kid. Yet I always had people during school declaring with conviction that my hair must be horrible to deal with, it must take me so long to wash, and I must have to use so much shampoo... They never did believe when I said it was less time and product than they said they themselves used. My hair was "too much" and "too healthy" for that to even be an option. Of course, they all also dyed, heat-treated, over-styled, etc. their hair, but never considered that part. Those conversations always wound up with them still convinced and demanding me to tell the truth and me just shrugging repeatedly because they wouldn't listen anyhow.

Natural undoubtedly has its place (Digestive issues? Check! Luckily, I managed to resolve them with a selection of fermented foods, heavy use of turmeric, and a specific type of yeast -- the drugs I was prescribed only made it worse.), but so does common sense.

[Nique1202]

I'm new here. And one if the things I love about this place is there is a place for everyone. I'm water only and I have one thing I have learned is that cleaning without commercial products is not not cleaning. The cleaning process is still a cleaning process, it is just a different process.

Modern hygiene products are less about science and more about business. Big business. And the art of marketing. And teaching us to not trust our bodies. And I'm personally exhausted by the noise and the media and the rest so I'm opting out. Does that mean I'm disgusting? Nope. Just different. And if you ever want to give it a go I would be happy to help. The transition period is hard, and I can understand how people would mistakenly assume that the yuckiness of transition is actually what the system always feels like. But it doesn't. Successfully making it through my transition has cleared up my SD (which I had been battling for many many years).

I hope people can find it in their hearts to embrace the crunchy corner of this community. You don't have to agree. You don't have to try those systems. But please don't exclude or try to shame us.

We're not saying that the methods themselves are bad. We're saying that getting preachy and saying that ANYONE can do something when that's provably not true is bad. Not all of us can dilute shampoo and get the same cleansing effect that makes us happy with our hair. Not all of us can go WO or SO no matter how long we wait for the "transition period" because the transition period doesn't exist for us. I can't even stretch my time between clean and greasy hair further than 4 days even when I washed only once a week for three months, and there are folks on here who can't stretch washes further than one or two days.

Nobody here is judging you for not using commercial products, but the rest of us would like the same consideration because being told "no really you should do this, it can work, I swear" and being told that commercial products harm the environment and are toxic to the body and all of that nonsense in nearly every thread gets really tiresome when study after study shows that these claims are not true. If someone asks for suggestions, suggest away, but I'm personally very tired of people who act like their way of doing things is the objective best way, or the only correct way, of doing things, and who won't accept that someone might choose differently for any number of reasons.

[Anya15]

Guys.

About antibiotics - I live in a country where they're prescribed for everything, yes even the 'flu.

And as for the rest of the stuff-cool down guys. Use what works for you. Using an ayurvedic shampoo formulation which was sulfate free worked for me. It may not work for everyone. I do like using natural products and use a lot of ayurvedic stuff, but that's because I have found that it's working for me. If it didn't, I'd stop using them obviously. IT MAY NOT WORK FOR EVERYONE. If it's not working don't use it...I don't understand what the argument is all about.

And being an aspiring sceintist I believe that science has improved our lives to a great extent. There are villages in my country where basics like water supply and electricity don't even exist, you should really see how the people there struggle even though they are living in "natural" conditions...So, no. We need a balance of both.

[lapushka]

Good grief, how can anyone possibly use that much that fast? Unless they're using sample-size bottles, maybe... Otherwise, they must be literally pouring the stuff down the drain!

I personally use a lot of shampoo, 3 globs, one in the back, one on top of my head, and one for the two temple/side areas (split in half). I have thick hair and I need that much (also because I have SD) - I need a thorough wash once a week. I don't think anyone should condemn me because I use a lot of product. And conditioner? Well a 250 ml bottle lasts me maybe 3 times. And? So what?

[Inga-Marjukka]

lapushka, same here. My hair is fine and there's loads of it so diluting hasn't worked once and it really takes a good dollop of anything to wash my scalp/cover the whole length. Exactly, so what? :magic:

[Olavi]

This is probably because of what threads I read, but I have seen far more judging and condemning on using less products and less commercial stuff. So far, after years being on this community, I haven't seen a trend of "natural people judging everyone else" described in this thread. I have however seen the opposite, and picked up the same vibe in this thread. But then again, I'm most likely biased by discussions I choose to read. It's also hard to pick up the right tone from text based conversation with so diverse community with people from all over the globe, with different cultures, languages and believes.

Personally, I don't use any sundsy stuff on my body apart from face and armpits, and definitely NOT on crotch area, and I prefer more simpler stuff on my hair. This is not because of some ideology, it's just because soaping myself up everyday would be VERY bad idea. Even short cold shower would be drying. Add warm, longer shower and soap, and it's very drying. And sometimes my atopic skin may act up, and I get full body eczema from shower gel. Lovely and so hygienic, isn't it ;) I also hate the plastic-y feeling most bodywashes and conditioners leave on my body and hair, and whatever everyone else says, I want to feel as comfortable in my skin as possible (and with 25 years of 24/7 itching I think I kinda deserve it), so out they are. I have been told I'm not hygienic enough, but frankly, I don't care, as this is what so far works best for me. I'm not walking around, telling people what they should use on their bodies, and I expect the same respect on my choices.

[iYaap]

I can agree, there are things that makes your life easy and clean and even luxurious.
If evolution (or God) is smart it wants to keep up with those inventions.
There is some sign that evolution actually is keeping up because there are theories that there is evolution between your own cells!

[lapushka]

I can agree, there are things that makes your life easy and clean and even luxurious.
If evolution (or God) is smart it wants to keep up with those inventions.
There is some sign that evolution actually is keeping up because there are theories that there is evolution between your own cells!

Hmm sounds interesting! :)

[Doom]

I completely agree with the OP, and that has always been my opinion.
To drive the point home, some days ago I made a parody advertisement, full of nonsense, for a nonexistent "natural" product, that apes many stereotypes that are parroted and regurgitated by hippies and hipsters. I then placed it in my Facebook profile, and my cousin, who is becoming a vegan hipster, fell hook, line and sinker for it.

Here it is:
http://i67.tinypic.com/2whl3tc.png

[lapushka]

This is probably because of what threads I read, but I have seen far more judging and condemning on using less products and less commercial stuff. So far, after years being on this community, I haven't seen a trend of "natural people judging everyone else" described in this thread. I have however seen the opposite, and picked up the same vibe in this thread. But then again, I'm most likely biased by discussions I choose to read. It's also hard to pick up the right tone from text based conversation with so diverse community with people from all over the globe, with different cultures, languages and believes.

That's odd because I always see most people say YMMV.

[iYaap]

Hmm sounds interesting! :)
I heard this theory some time ago while I was going to biology college.
This is an article I could find that shows there is at least transfer of genetic information: http://www.nature.com/ncb/journal/v9/n6/full/ncb1596.html

[KittyBird]

I completely agree with the OP, and that has always been my opinion.
To drive the point home, some days ago I made a parody advertisement, full of nonsense, for a nonexistent "natural" product, that apes many stereotypes that are parroted and regurgitated by hippies and hipsters. I then placed it in my Facebook profile, and my cousin, who is becoming a vegan hipster, fell hook, line and sinker for it.

Here it is:

That is brilliant! :lol:

[henné]

I heard this theory some time ago while I was going to biology college.
This is an article I could find that shows there is at least transfer of genetic information: http://www.nature.com/ncb/journal/v9/n6/full/ncb1596.html


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253722/

In recent decades reproductive and developmental problems have become more prevalent—for example, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that male reproductive problems, including undescended testicles and hypospadias, doubled between 1970 and 1993. Environmental chemicals are strongly suspected to be contributing factors. Several recent reports highlight the presence of low-level concentrations of potential reproductive or developmental toxicants, particularly phthalates, in cosmetics and personal care products. A key question is whether these exposures are significant enough to cause harm.

In June 2004, Environment California issued Growing Up Toxic: Chemical Exposures and Increases in Developmental Diseases, which details chemicals found in consumer products and their potential health impacts. Other reports released around the same time by the Environmental Working Group (Skin Deep: A Safety Assessment of Ingredients in Personal Care Products) and Friends of the Earth (Shop Till You Drop? Survey of High Street Retailers on Risky Chemicals in Products 2003–2004) support Environment California’s publication.

According to these three reports, makeup, shampoo, skin lotion, nail polish, and other personal care products contain chemical ingredients that lack safety data. Moreover, some of these chemicals have been linked in animal studies to male genital birth defects, decreased sperm counts, and altered pregnancy outcomes. There is no definitive evidence for the same effects in humans, but widespread exposure, primarily to phthalates, has been shown to occur.

Phthalates, as key components in plastics, appear in many consumer products. The main phthalates in cosmetics and personal care products are dibutyl phthalate in nail polish, diethyl phthalate in perfumes and lotions, and dimethyl phthalate in hair spray. Often, their presence is not noted on labels.

“The concerns that are focused around this particular chemical [class] have arisen from a series of tests and studies that have been released recently that point to significant potential health concerns,” says Sujatha Jahagirdar, an environmental advocate with Environment California. For example, a population study conducted by the CDC and published in the March 2004 issue of EHP demonstrated that 97% of 2,540 individuals tested had been exposed to one or more phthalates. Another preliminary study conducted at the Harvard School of Public Health and published in the July 2003 issue of EHP showed a correlation between urinary phthalate metabolite concentrations and DNA damage in human sperm. However, exposure sources in this study were unknown.

The personal care industry remains confident about phthalate safety, however. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel, an independent research group sponsored by the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (ROFL, this MUST be a joke, 'independent', hahaha), published a detailed literature review in February 2003 that unequivocally states that current use of phthalates in cosmetics and personal care products is safe. Marian Stanley, manager of the Phthalate Esters Panel of the American Chemistry Council, says, “Some of these concerns [from environmental groups] are based on high-dose animal testing. The exposure that we really see in people—and we have the CDC numbers to back that up—is remarkably low. To us, why bother getting rid of a highly useful product when there should be no concern?”

Therein lies the controversy—environmental groups view the CDC data as evidence of widespread exposure, whereas industry groups view it as evidence of low-level exposure that falls well below amounts shown to cause problems in animal studies. The environmental groups respond that although it may be low-level exposure, it is chronic low-level exposure. Says Elizabeth Sword, executive director of the nonprofit Children’s Health Environmental Coalition: “In my view there is sufficient evidence to pique my concern, not only as a parent but as the executive director of this organization, to circulate this information directly to parents in a way that they can then make the healthiest decisions.”

However, consumers cannot make such judgments without knowing the ingredients contained in the products they use. “There are industry trade secrets and formulations that for industry reasons are kept from the consumer,” says Sword. “This prevents the consumer from making fully informed decisions.”

Environment California and the other environmental organizations hope to change that through consumer education and policy reform at the state and federal levels. “Environment California is pushing for a commonsense chemical policy that requires chemical manufacturers to test . . . their chemicals before they are released into the market and also provide the public with the tools that it needs to protect itself from potential dangerous impacts,” says Jahagirdar. “Labeling is an extremely important and ethical thing for manufacturers to be doing.”

“I think a lot of this comes down to an individual’s acceptance of risk,” says Sword. “[Each person’s] personal risk tolerance is different. I think what we as a society need to feel confident about is that adults will at least make better decisions if you give them a way to do so, particularly when the health of a child may be at risk from making a bad decision.”

So, what kind of evolution are we talking here? Do we have to evolve to be more resilient to nasty chemicals or is it better to minimise the use of nasty chemicals?

Even in low levels I am not ok with using them. Not on an every day basis. Not on my children. We still DON'T KNOW, essentially, how they affect us.

Nope, not gonna chance it. Already have enough chemicals to wade through by just breathing the air and drinking the water, no need to add to that chemical cocktail.

But yeah, you're free to do to yourself and your children whatever you want ... and I don't mean 'you' personally, but you as in everyone.

[MsBubbles]

The medical clinic that I go to is careful about prescribing antibiotics but will prescribe medications to ease symptoms. It does seem that most people who go to the doctor want to be given something to make them feel better.


That really bugs me. I'm glad your local clinic is thoughtful on what they prescribe - I wish they all were! I usually find I have the opposite fight if I am so sick I have to cave in and see a doctor. I want to be treated, meaning 'help me figure out if I can get over this thing, and if not, how I can manage it', not 'Fob me off with some pill so I can get outta here asap'. And I know this is a rant for another thread but most doctors I've seen seem to think their patients are clueless idiots who barely know how to get to the doctor's office, much less know anything about their own bodies. For so many of us, the opposite is true. I'm so sensitive to everything the absolute last thing I want is to take any more medications (sorry for the threadjack!).

And yikes! Reminds me of the Radium Girls of the early 1900's (whose jaw bones crumbled and fell off): (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls)


I completely agree with the OP, and that has always been my opinion.
To drive the point home, some days ago I made a parody advertisement, full of nonsense, for a nonexistent "natural" product, that apes many stereotypes that are parroted and regurgitated by hippies and hipsters. I then placed it in my Facebook profile, and my cousin, who is becoming a vegan hipster, fell hook, line and sinker for it.

Here it is:
http://i67.tinypic.com/2whl3tc.png

[henné]

I completely agree with the OP, and that has always been my opinion.
To drive the point home, some days ago I made a parody advertisement, full of nonsense, for a nonexistent "natural" product, that apes many stereotypes that are parroted and regurgitated by hippies and hipsters. I then placed it in my Facebook profile, and my cousin, who is becoming a vegan hipster, fell hook, line and sinker for it.

Here it is:
http://i67.tinypic.com/2whl3tc.png

Ok, let me get this straight ... you're trying to say that your idiot cousin represents all 'vegans' and 'hipsters'?

Wow ...

[henné]

I personally use a lot of shampoo, 3 globs, one in the back, one on top of my head, and one for the two temple/side areas (split in half). I have thick hair and I need that much (also because I have SD) - I need a thorough wash once a week. I don't think anyone should condemn me because I use a lot of product. And conditioner? Well a 250 ml bottle lasts me maybe 3 times. And? So what?

That means you're probably creating more waste than my entire family of four.

Who is condemning you?

[Robot Ninja]

This is probably because of what threads I read, but I have seen far more judging and condemning on using less products and less commercial stuff. So far, after years being on this community, I haven't seen a trend of "natural people judging everyone else" described in this thread. I have however seen the opposite, and picked up the same vibe in this thread. But then again, I'm most likely biased by discussions I choose to read. It's also hard to pick up the right tone from text based conversation with so diverse community with people from all over the globe, with different cultures, languages and believes.


I don't think I've ever seen this. There's definitely a "less is often more" attitude on this forum (except when it comes to conditioner, heh), with people being encouraged to dilute their shampoo and stretch washes. When people say they wash every day or use sulfate shampoo or cones, it's often because they have to, they've tried using less and it didn't work, not because they think it's better.

There's probably some judgement of people who keep insisting on going natural even though it obviously isn't working, but in that case I think it's kind of justified. If your head is a flaky greaseball long after a normal transition period, maybe it's time to admit that WO or whatever just isn't for you and go back to shampoo.



According to these three reports, makeup, shampoo, skin lotion, nail polish, and other personal care products contain chemical ingredients that lack safety data. Moreover, some of these chemicals have been linked in animal studies to male genital birth defects, decreased sperm counts, and altered pregnancy outcomes. There is no definitive evidence for the same effects in humans, but widespread exposure, primarily to phthalates, has been shown to occur.


A lot of those animal studies use really high amounts of these chemicals. In high enough concentrations, nearly anything can cause damage.

[henné]

This is probably because of what threads I read, but I have seen far more judging and condemning on using less products and less commercial stuff. So far, after years being on this community, I haven't seen a trend of "natural people judging everyone else" described in this thread. I have however seen the opposite, and picked up the same vibe in this thread. But then again, I'm most likely biased by discussions I choose to read. It's also hard to pick up the right tone from text based conversation with so diverse community with people from all over the globe, with different cultures, languages and believes.

Personally, I don't use any sundsy stuff on my body apart from face and armpits, and definitely NOT on crotch area, and I prefer more simpler stuff on my hair. This is not because of some ideology, it's just because soaping myself up everyday would be VERY bad idea. Even short cold shower would be drying. Add warm, longer shower and soap, and it's very drying. And sometimes my atopic skin may act up, and I get full body eczema from shower gel. Lovely and so hygienic, isn't it ;) I also hate the plastic-y feeling most bodywashes and conditioners leave on my body and hair, and whatever everyone else says, I want to feel as comfortable in my skin as possible (and with 25 years of 24/7 itching I think I kinda deserve it), so out they are. I have been told I'm not hygienic enough, but frankly, I don't care, as this is what so far works best for me. I'm not walking around, telling people what they should use on their bodies, and I expect the same respect on my choices.

I posted a thread about wanting natural alternatives to commercial conditioners and the very first poster basically told me I'm 'going too far' with this.

Then a thread started by someone wanting to try WO ... wow what a slew of judgment that was, including a line on 'I don't know anyone that is WO that has nice hair.' Kaboom.

Commercial conventional products are MUCH MORE accepted on LHC.

[Red.]

Doom, I love this. "Helps to fight cellular aging caused by chemtraits, vaccines, fluoridated water, electromagnetic waves and product of animal origin." :bs:

[Kiiruna]

I think that sometimes when people hear "my haircare is all natural", they think "my way to take care of my hair is better than yours", even though no one meant it that way. It's wrong to bash people who like to use shampoo bars and avc rinses ("naive hippies"), and it's wrong to bash people who like to use sulfate shampoos and cone conditioners ("blind ignorants").
"This works for my hair" =/= "this is superior and should work for everyone".

[01]

If your head is a flaky greaseball long after a normal transition period, maybe it's time to admit that WO or whatever just isn't for you and go back to shampoo.
My head is dry, flaky and itchy after shampoo, heh. Itchy and painful after conditioner only. Itchy, painful and actually dirty if I try to shampoo more often than every 5 days. On my previous attempts WO actually dried out my hair, it wasn't a greaseball, I purposefully started to use oil because I couldn't stand it being so dry. But it's dry after everything so whatever, eh. At least on WO my scalp is fine. I wish my head was greaseball after WO, at least that would condition my hair, duh.

[Doom]

Ok, let me get this straight ... you're trying to say that your idiot cousin represents all 'vegans' and 'hipsters'?

Wow ...
No, there is no subtext in my posts, except what readers add themselves.

[henné]

No, there is no subtext in my posts, except what readers add themselves.

What was the point then?

[truepeacenik]

I'm willing to wager that the majority of LHC uses a blend of commercial, commercial touted as natural, and historical/traditional methods on their hair.

The person who finds undiluted shampoo of any formulation to be wonderful might still dab some edible oil on the ends here and there.
A WO might use a coloring agent.

Heck, many use plastic combs. I love my Denman brush.

This argument reminds me so strongly of the Great Veg Wars of my young adulthood.
If I, a vegetarian, decide leather is the best choice I have at the time for shoes (as I see plastics, even durable plastics, as more problematic than animal agriculture), am I selling out?
Sure, if I identified as vegan, I'd be selling out the philosophy. But not my environmental stance.
And failing the Great Purity Test.

Purity leads to creating The Other, and dividing people.
Just re-read the thread.

[reilly0167]

Personally, if someone is causing harm to themselves or others through their actions, then maybe that individual should take a closer look at their actions and change how they go about things. Also, if they are not happy with what they do, why bother?
Someone told me that arsenic can be found in nature. Not everything natural, or found in nature, is safe and just because something is synthetic doesn't mean it's unsafe.
That's is true an example of that is white oleander, a pretty flower but when steeped its arsenic.

[Doom]

What was the point then?
To share my opinion and a funny anecdote with the community.

[Cg]

And I'm glad I don't sit next to the person who opposes soap.

[Hairkay]

Doom, I love this. "Helps to fight cellular aging caused by chemtraits, vaccines, fluoridated water, electromagnetic waves and product of animal origin." :bs:

I second this. LOL I wonder, Doom was this an April Fools' day prank of yours?


I posted a thread about wanting natural alternatives to commercial conditioners and the very first poster basically told me I'm 'going too far' with this.

Then a thread started by someone wanting to try WO ... wow what a slew of judgment that was, including a line on 'I don't know anyone that is WO that has nice hair.' Kaboom.

Commercial conventional products are MUCH MORE accepted on LHC.

According to how you use the forums it can come across like that. I rarely if at all venture into the Conventional products and hair accessories forum because I'm aware that nothing there may suite me. I also have little to no experience using said products.

I do state where I'm coming from when I bring up a thread or post. I do still get posts telling me that x product is best used for ssk and avoiding lint. I just end up disagreeing. It has been implied that fruits and vegetables are best eaten rather than being used for hair masks even though I had stated my reason for exploring this route. Others also joined in with their experiences of using fruits etc or their curiosity about it. Then there's that theory floating around that if a product reacts badly with the scalp just use it on the hair length. I've already pointed out that hair is attached to a person so said product may still cause a problem after all even with length hair will brush against the neck, shoulders and arms. You also need to use your hands to style the hair so there's still too much risk of skin contact.

Part of this reason is because when someone finds something that works for them they get overjoyed and sing praises for it. It's easy to forget that this won't be the same experience for everyone. Being objective is difficult especially trying to interpret something via post online when you can't use body language and voice tone. Background information of each individual and circumstance is also limited.

[Olavi]

And I'm glad I don't sit next to the person who opposes soap.

And I'm glad I don't sit next to a person who have cloud of perfume around them.

"Opposing soap" automatically makes one a stinkbomb as much as using soap makes one a perfumebomb (personally I prefer to be around stinkbomb, as I can at least breathe around them without my throat clog up).

[01]

I'm willing to wager that the majority of LHC uses a blend of commercial, commercial touted as natural, and historical/traditional methods on their hair. The person who finds undiluted shampoo of any formulation to be wonderful might still dab some edible oil on the ends here and there. A WO might use a coloring agent. Heck, many use plastic combs. I love my Denman brush. This argument reminds me so strongly of the Great Veg Wars of my young adulthood. If I, a vegetarian, decide leather is the best choice I have at the time for shoes (as I see plastics, even durable plastics, as more problematic than animal agriculture), am I selling out? Sure, if I identified as vegan, I'd be selling out the philosophy. But not my environmental stance. And failing the Great Purity Test. Purity leads to creating The Other, and dividing people. Just re-read the thread. That's smartest post in this thread! I love it! I'm vegetarian btw and use horn comb, silk scarf and have leather boots. Come on people, are we supposed to quarrell like that all day? People with one scalp condition against people with another scalp condition? It's ridiculous.

[Arctic]

Sooo.... who likes cheese! :cheese: We have all kinds of cheese, come and get them! What have you? We have natural cheese, commercial cheese, as many vegan vegan cheese as there are the other kinds, goat cheese, Finnish cheese, hair cheese! And fruits! And crackers/bisquits!

http://abeautifulmess.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8358081ff69e2017615efec44970c-800wi

[Kiiruna]

I just ate lovely Brie cheese, it was soooo soft! I'm in love! :cheese:

[Arctic]

I like edam and all vegan cheese options! And mozzarella and feta! And fruits with them!

[henné]

I'm willing to wager that the majority of LHC uses a blend of commercial, commercial touted as natural, and historical/traditional methods on their hair.

The person who finds undiluted shampoo of any formulation to be wonderful might still dab some edible oil on the ends here and there.
A WO might use a coloring agent.

Heck, many use plastic combs. I love my Denman brush.

This argument reminds me so strongly of the Great Veg Wars of my young adulthood.
If I, a vegetarian, decide leather is the best choice I have at the time for shoes (as I see plastics, even durable plastics, as more problematic than animal agriculture), am I selling out?
Sure, if I identified as vegan, I'd be selling out the philosophy. But not my environmental stance.
And failing the Great Purity Test.

Purity leads to creating The Other, and dividing people.
Just re-read the thread.

:) I used to be a vegan addicted to honey ;) And my Dr. Martens also didn't go over that well either - but hell, I've had those boots for nearly two decades and they're still gorgeous! Guess how many 'plastic' shoes I'd have to go through in the same span of time ... I'm also that crazy person that has her boots/shoes repaired instead of buying a new pair.

[Llama]

That's is true an example of that is white oleander, a pretty flower but when steeped its arsenic.

That's what I first thought of- probably because White Oleander by Janet Fitch is one of my favorite books :)

[Entangled]

It's interesting looking at the tone on this forum regarding overall philosophy. Before I joined, I lurked extensively using a site-specific Google search, and most of the stuff that came up was from 2009-2012 rather than more recent. Based on my observations from that time and now, there's been a big shift. Formerly, there was more condemnation of certain typical behaviors, like "blowfrying" (haven't seen that term around for a while), and a heavier emphasis on using less; I felt more of a tone of "just wait, my way will work out for you eventually." Commercial products seemed less popular, dyeing was a huge no-no, and BBBs were much more in vogue. I see a lot more of a YMMV attitude around here now. Both cases were strictly Mane forum topics, not straying into conventional products or henna and natural products.

I think part of it is demand; I agree with Mimha's assertion that we focus too much in buying a product to fix a problem but in doing so, create a new problem that we also try and remedy and I think many people come looking for a way around commercial haircare's message of inadequacy. This brings up many threads looking for alternatives, but often "solutions" that don't work because they have the same mentality: I have a problem, this must fix it and is unquestionably good, therefore I must need another solution to solve the problem that stated when I used the new product, which will cause another problem. Critical evaluation and observation are needed to cure that. On the other hand, many people are looking for an alternative because conventional products have never worked for them and they sincerely need something else.

I see less condemnation of things like WO and SO here than in real life. However, there is pushback and I think that comes from members here remembering trying in vain to make it work for them while being told that "it will work, you're just not patient enough" etc. when the fact remains that it didn't work. And I think people are more frank (WO and SO also seemed more popular earlier) that they've tried liking WO/SO hair and have found, politically correct or not, that they really just don't like it on themselves and others. If someone asks for sincere opinions, they'll give them. Taste is subjective. There are many people's hair here that I don't like, or think looks ugly, or that I'm glad isn't mine. However, I don't see the need to comment on that unless a person was asking for an honest evaluation and I'll let the people who like it give the sincere compliments, and I think many follow the same philosophy. However, there are opinions that affect more than the questioner, which can hurt people's feelings. (For example, I don't like bugundy hair. I have literally never seen any that I like. If someone were asking about it, I would say that. If someone in the audience had burgundy hair, I might offend them. However, it is true, even if hurtful, and my opinion is subjective.) Plus, there are times when people would feel that way about my hair and recognize that people are on different steps of a journey. Ultimately, no one is here to "decorate my world."

In regards to more on topic things, this reminds me of former member Igor's feeling about lemon juice. She used it as a "natural" alternative to bleach and it killed her hair. Natural doesn't mean safe or better. I have heard a lot of Internet things which falsely push "natural" as something inherently wholesome, which simply isn't the case. Long hair boards can skew towards rejection of conventional advice, and sometimes the opinion of natural is best can pop up. I'm glad there are options. I benefit from that voice; homemade soap bars help my skin more than any store-bought soap. I also think that some natural products may be better for the environment than my coal tar shampoo and suave conditioner.

There is certainly misinformation perpetuated by prevailing opinion that the natural body is something that needs to be cleaned up, erased, stripped, shaved, painted, and perfumed in order to be acceptable. However, there is just as much misinformation about commercial products; they're not the devil, they're better than certain "natural" alternatives (as in baking soda vs clarifying shampoo in terms of harshness), and some cause just as many problems due to the chemical smorgasbord in plants. There's also certain times when natural isn't going to save you. Lightening your hair is harsh, whether the lightened is natural or not. We create products to make things easier and better; just because we sometimes go to far doesn't mean anything natural is to be worshipped and anything commercial condemned or vice versa.

So, I think the lesson learned is YMMV. This board overall tries to keep that in mind, though it's not always the case since there are certain preferences, and I appreciate that. Interesting discussion!

[Doom]

And yikes! Reminds me of the Radium Girls of the early 1900's (whose jaw bones crumbled and fell off): (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls)
Yep. I was reading an article about the history of nuclear physics, and a paragraph was about the real radioactive quackery craze of the early 20th century. I googled "radioactive quackery", found https://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/radith.htm]this (https://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/radith.htm) and got the inspiration.

I second this. LOL I wonder, Doom was this an April Fools' day prank of yours?
It was not intended as such. It wasn't April 1 yet when I posted that picture in my profile, and I only meant to amuse friends who share my ideas. I never expected that someone would take it at face value. :D

[lapushka]

That means you're probably creating more waste than my entire family of four.

Who is condemning you?

I don't think I am creating waste, just normally consuming what I *need*. And there is nothing wrong with that.

[spidermom]

Great post, entangled.

I have noticed that the popularity of certain methods waxes and wanes. I've also seen both opinions, from WO/SOers saying something to the effect that if you're patient and do it right, WO/SO will work for you; also from conventional product users that WO/SO is nothing more than learning to tolerate dirty hair (guilty, but I'm teachable).

With every method, it truly seems that YMMV is the correct disclaimer. For example, I can truthfully say that natural, unrefined coconut oil is wonderful for my hair, but my daughter is dangerously allergic to it. Difficult for her because nearly every hair care product out there contains coconut oil derivative in one form or another.

[Entangled]

Thanks, Spidermom!

This conversation reminds me of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lraDNDuFNj8) video, meant in the most lighthearted way. :bigtongue:

[spidermom]

haha, enjoyed that, entangled

[Wildcat Diva]

There are trade offs that often must be considered for different methods. For example, I have often looked at NW/SO methods that probably won't work because my hair can't tolerate all the preening and would probably break off more. Also, I would lose my waves. I would get lots of flakes and need to "clean up my diet" to help with that. And then it still might not work. It's one of those things I have looked at and wonder about but won't try. I don't know, there is no sense in people trying to tell me to try it, and no one really does. Sometimes it does seem like people get locked into ways of thinking, but it also seems like it's hard sometimes to imagine what others go through or want or need. And that is not just with hair. Just some thoughts, no point really.

[lapushka]

I tried it all, WD, and it's not worth it. WO/SO (14 days and my SD flared); CO-washing (SD flare); sulfate-free, okay for a while, then: SD flare. So no for me. It's different for everybody and that is why YMMV! But I can't go natural. I need product and lots of it, and who is anybody else to judge, really?

[reilly0167]

That's what I first thought of- probably because White Oleander by Janet Fitch is one of my favorite books :)
Heh, that too, something i remember from science class. I guess you do learn something if you stayed awake in class.

[mz_butterfly]

Very wise observation :)

Natural is good to use when it's available. ie: Natural soaps, more natural shampoos, oils. More salads, less McDonalds. More honey, less sweet n low, etc.

Not washing your body, hand, face or hair without soap because soap is not natural is a bit much. Some people just take things to extremes. It doesn't have to be "all or nothing" there can usually be a happy medium for most problems in life. :)



I ran across an argument for using nothing sudsy on skin or hair that contained the phrase "nobody is born with a bottle of shampoo in the hand" as if that alone is proof that we shouldn't have it, and that's been bothering the crap out of me ever since. I don't remember who said it and this isn't an attack on a person but a challenge to the idea.

Nobody is born with soap in the hand either, but the invention and use of it has been invaluable in stopping the spread of disease through hospital wards. Back in the 1800s, nobody washed their hands or changed filthy clothing between patients. Infection spread very quickly through hospital populations, causing a lot of preventable death and misery. Should we cease the use of soap and hand washing because "it isn't natural". Nobody is born with braces on their teeth, either, but my granddaughter has a small mouth and would end up with teeth coming in sideways if spacing isn't corrected now. In an all natural world, she would be stuck with too many teeth and not enough mouth, and I'm sure that wouldn't enhance her life.

My point is this. Maybe humans were born with such big brains so that we could think and invent solutions to our problems. For me, oily hair is a problem, and I'm glad for the shampoo; I'm glad for the hand washing; I'm glad for the braces; I'm glad for many other inventions that give me a lifespan longer than 30 years.

[Anya15]

I tried it all, WD, and it's not worth it. WO/SO (14 days and my SD flared); CO-washing (SD flare); sulfate-free, okay for a while, then: SD flare. So no for me. It's different for everybody and that is why YMMV! But I can't go natural. I need product and lots of it, and who is anybody else to judge, really?

Lapushka, I think I have mild SD. (I didn't know what it was until I joined LHC and saw you post about it.) I have tried washing my hair with diluted shampoo and it became a greaseball in 6 hours, so I use it undiluted. I tried going back to sulfates but my hair fell out in clumps. My current routine has my hair happy, so I'm happy. :


Very wise observation :)

Natural is good to use when it's available. ie: Natural soaps, more natural shampoos, oils. More salads, less McDonalds. More honey, less sweet n low, etc.

Not washing your body, hand, face or hair without soap because soap is not natural is a bit much. Some people just take things to extremes. It doesn't have to be "all or nothing" there can usually be a happy medium for most problems in life. :)

I totally agree! There are so many people in my country who don't have access to clean water, let alone soap....there are often epidemics and then they don't have access to healthcare...I'm really really grateful for what we have in terms of cleansing products, medicines, etc.

[ladycaladium]

This whole thing reminds me of when I worked at a garden center. People would come in looking for a natural fertilizer. But chicken manure - nope, can't have that because it isn't natural and do you know what chicken manure is? That's right, chicken poop! (This is what the customers would tell me). They wanted Milorganite because a popular radio host with a gardening program recommended it and that it was natural. These people had no idea what it was. I've give you a hint...replace chicken with people and you have the answer!

Personally, I use a combination of natural and unnatural products that fit my needs and my environmental and social concerns. I don't plan on telling people that they are right or wrong in their choices, but am happy to talk about different products/methods.

There are some perfectly wonderful (from what I hear) natural products and foods (that my vegan freind eats) that I can't try because they would kill me. Allergies are a real thing, whether to man-made or natural products. Also, access is another factor. I don't use coconut oil because I don't really like it, but I know it's popular. Do you know how hard it is to find in Japan? And how expensive it is? So it isn't used by a lot of people here. It's just the way it is. So I think that is another factor is people using natural/man-made products.

[lapushka]

Lapushka, I think I have mild SD. (I didn't know what it was until I joined LHC and saw you post about it.) I have tried washing my hair with diluted shampoo and it became a greaseball in 6 hours, so I use it undiluted. I tried going back to sulfates but my hair fell out in clumps. My current routine has my hair happy, so I'm happy. :

Whatever works for you! :thumbsup: I had to find out in my thirties that, for me, it was harsh sulfates that kept it at bay, so... I know what it's like to try and struggle your way towards some type of solution! :flower:

[Doom]

This whole thing reminds me of when I worked at a garden center. People would come in looking for a natural fertilizer. But chicken manure - nope, can't have that because it isn't natural and do you know what chicken manure is? That's right, chicken poop! (This is what the customers would tell me). They wanted Milorganite because a popular radio host with a gardening program recommended it and that it was natural. These people had no idea what it was. I've give you a hint...replace chicken with people and you have the answer!
Ha ha, that's funny. Did you ever tell them what it was? :lol:

[henné]

I ran across an argument for using nothing sudsy on skin or hair that contained the phrase "nobody is born with a bottle of shampoo in the hand" as if that alone is proof that we shouldn't have it, and that's been bothering the crap out of me ever since. I don't remember who said it and this isn't an attack on a person but a challenge to the idea.

What I am wondering is why do you care about what one person said somewhere? Did it shock you or made you uncomfortable? Did it make you feel threatened?

I don't think I've ever been so moved by anything related to haircare that I'd off and create a stand alone thread for it. So I'm curious ...

Also, considering the judgment that is present already in the name of the thread ... it feels like you were truly moved by what that person said and feel the need to shoot back.

To address what that person said, so her line is true - nobody was born with a shampoo in their hands. Plus shampoo is a fairly recent invention. Now I'm talking shampoo, not soap, of course. Two very different things.


Nobody is born with soap in the hand either, but the invention and use of it has been invaluable in stopping the spread of disease through hospital wards. Back in the 1800s, nobody washed their hands or changed filthy clothing between patients. Infection spread very quickly through hospital populations, causing a lot of preventable death and misery. Should we cease the use of soap and hand washing because "it isn't natural". Nobody is born with braces on their teeth, either, but my granddaughter has a small mouth and would end up with teeth coming in sideways if spacing isn't corrected now. In an all natural world, she would be stuck with too many teeth and not enough mouth, and I'm sure that wouldn't enhance her life.

My point is this. Maybe humans were born with such big brains so that we could think and invent solutions to our problems. For me, oily hair is a problem, and I'm glad for the shampoo; I'm glad for the hand washing; I'm glad for the braces; I'm glad for many other inventions that give me a lifespan longer than 30 years.

I did not read the thread or what the poster that made you this upset actually wrote, but I think you're taking it a tad too far.

I think there is an ocean of difference wanting a more natural hair and skincare and for example ... braces. Or not vaccinating. Or not taking any antibiotics ever even when one needs them. Now *that* could possibly be labeled as 'taking it too far.'

I think 'going natural' also means different things to different people. To me, it's about minimising danger to the environment and my (and my family's) health as well as minimising waste production. That's why I don't buy plastic bottles filled with crap I can't even pronounce and that I sure as hell don't know what it's doing to my health. I know what olive oil does to me. I know what it is. I eat it. But, for a totally random example, triclosan? Nah, I'll stay away from that one as much as I can, thank you very much.

I agree, we have huge brains and we should use them.

[Wildcat Diva]

The why is she thinking about it? I don't know for sure but I know my brain does problem solving like that, I lock onto something that is different and it creates a "cognitive dissonance" that is hard to shake. I also lock onto sarcasm and "loaded comments" for some reason, and I provide those back as well many times, it's like I am attracted by the salience and need to respond in kind.

I know I was debating and focusing on the "war on drugs thing" and talking with my husband about it, and he tells me WHY are you obsessing (on some of the opinions and speculations)? Our kids will be long dead before what you are talking about will even be an issue to that degree. But things like recycling for instance tends to cause me to obsess and my mind turn. So when someone expresses a very salient, image-ridden view about it (and let's face it, the image of someone "being born with a bottle of shampoo in their hand" is a bit... Well, strong and confrontational. It's like, well that image is obviously satire, I didn't actually think that anyone was born like that...(It's a bit like mocking in order to poke someone) The person was challenging me to think, and so think I shall. When I get poked, I'm going and going in my mind, that's just me. Then my mind might use that as fuel to turn and consider and confront and debate. That's just my process though, not Spidermom. When you think about it, it can be a learning experience if it doesn't set me off into outer space with stirred emotions.

And for what it's worth, the question "why", as in why does it bother you, can be off-putting. In providing therapy, I have learned that those "why" questions are so powerful with challenge and confrontation, that "what" is often a better (More effective) communication option for me to approach someone with.

For example, I associate the WHY question my husband asked me above with more of a ugh, that's annoying... STOP, rather than actually wanting to understand my process of obsessing.

"Why" can often take one the meaning "why on Earth" which is often more condemning and pushing away than trying to really understand and connect. It is also often associated with disapproval for many of us over time. "Why are you wearing THAT!?! Why would you have pink hair?" Like that.

I have often pulled a "Sheldon" and actually tried to explain to people my process when someone asked me why on something, when it became clear that they didn't really want to know or understand, just wanted to condemn/shame me.
Just using the question why to approach someone, even if you really want to understand and connect is often ineffective because it's so loaded in the English language. Maybe other languages too, but I'm completely ignorant about that.

[spidermom]

henne', I think Wildcat Diva is pretty much right about my thought process. My mind kept turning it over and over, trying to make sense of the idea that humans shouldn't use more than they're born with, and it doesn't make sense to me. Therefore, I started a thread to see what others think about it.

I have a hard time with sarcasm, satire, or exaggeration. I expect people to say what they mean and mean what they say. Therefore, I often benefit from clarification if somebody throws a phrase out there that my brain can't make sense of.

[Wildcat Diva]

Yay! Being "pretty much right" starts my day on an upswing, even if it is on an Internet forum. I haven't spoken to anybody in real life yet, so it's the best I can do. Imma try to continue the trend of being right when my kids wake up finally and I have to boss them around with packing up our tent and loading up the truck to head home. :) (Perhaps it's an underlying need? Don't tell my shrink!)

[ladycaladium]

Ha ha, that's funny. Did you ever tell them what it was? :lol:

Yep, and most of the time they told me I didn't know what I was talking about.

[henné]

henne', I think Wildcat Diva is pretty much right about my thought process. My mind kept turning it over and over, trying to make sense of the idea that humans shouldn't use more than they're born with, and it doesn't make sense to me. Therefore, I started a thread to see what others think about it.

I have a hard time with sarcasm, satire, or exaggeration. I expect people to say what they mean and mean what they say. Therefore, I often benefit from clarification if somebody throws a phrase out there that my brain can't make sense of.

That is actually very interesting to read - a good insight. As I am the exact opposite, I see sarcasm and satire everywhere - probably even places where none exists ... I guess I could blame it on my upbringing ;)

[Wildcat Diva]

And... On a related note... To touch back on my previous post, I used my awesome mind powers to think back on that conversation with my husband and REALLY remember what was said (and this a thing that men hate about women). I WAS wrong. I remember "why are you obsessing?" But what he actually
asked was "are you STILL thinking about that?" Like he was incredulous. Which I took as "OMG you are a freak" to some degree. Like, "This is so incredulously surprising and senseless besides, that I have to show an air of scoffing at you." Even if the scoffing is extra, created by my mind (probably wasn't) the intense expressed shock is enough to make be feel slighted as a freak.

Maybe I have "issues."

(Plus I have already been on the roller coaster of being "right" and then the next moment "wrong" and my kids aren't even awake yet to fuel the trend. Perhaps I am gaslighting myself. That would be something interesting.)

[henné]

And... On a related note... To touch back on my previous post, I used my awesome mind powers to think back on that conversation with my husband and REALLY remember what was said (and this a thing that men hate about women). I WAS wrong. I remember "why are you obsessing?" But what he actually
asked was "are you STILL thinking about that?" Like he was incredulous. Which I took as "OMG you are a freak" to some degree. Like, "This is so incredulously surprising and senseless besides, that I have to show an air of scoffing at you." Even if the scoffing is extra, created by my mind (probably wasn't) the intense expressed shock is enough to make be feel slighted as a freak.

Maybe I have "issues."

(Plus I have already been on the roller coaster of being "right" and then the next moment "wrong" and my kids aren't even awake yet to fuel the trend. Perhaps I am gaslighting myself. That would be something interesting.)

Doesn't your mind sometimes exhaust you? ;)

We may have similar 'issues.' :)

[Wildcat Diva]

Oh yes it does. It's nice to know I'm not alone in the scary void of chaos. :headache:

(On another topic, I've never used the "headache" emoticon before. He looks like he is taking a poop. Which may somehow be fitting for me.)

[mermaid lullaby]

I'm one of those people who think like you Spiderman. I'm trying not to take things personal and it's rather hard sometimes.

Eh, natural organic goods aren't available in my rural area. From living in a agricultural community, I see organic foods and such, as a fad from those who live in the city. I keep forgetting to say this, but what is soy milk exactly? That is one of those things that confused me, and its on the unnatural side.

[truepeacenik]

I don't think I am creating waste, just normally consuming what I *need*. And there is nothing wrong with that.

So far as shampoo/conditioner, yes. You are not wasting.

The manufacturers, given the bottle size limitations you have mentioned in other threads, do hold some blame for too many bottles.
That's why I asked the maker of my shampoo (distributed across most of the US, but somewhat local to me so I was willing to go pick up) , about gallons.
I knew that my high dilution would allow that one large bottle to replace many smaller ones. They are almost the same thickness.
If I'd not been able to do that, another shampoo, one I can refill at a shop, would have earned a spot in my shower.
Goes back to my ecological argument.

Is bulk refill practiced anywhere in the EU for body/haircare items?



ETA: (to not make new posts)
WD, thank you for all your words.
I consider Diva a friend. I'd probably hang out with her if I ever got over my allergy to Texas. ;)
However, we have a large pool of disagreement.
She uses a certain type of tool that I think needs some control, somehow. She's completely legal, and I do not begrudge HER her tool, but I do begrudge it in the hands of many others who do wrong with it.
One could make the same argument for some things I have no objection to, such as psychedelics.
Diva is especially well trained to disagree with me here.
So, if I disagree with her, why do I consider her a friend?
She's wicked smart, educated in something that gives her life meaning, caring, only reasonably judgemental (contrasted to simply judgemental--- she is discerning) and she reminds me of people I knew in Texas. Yes, I rip on the place I was raised.

So, if I do not know her in real life, how do I know these things, and more importantly, develop an attachment to her?
Through words and assumed tone.
Because I like her, I see her words as considered. I see her tone as non adversarial.

I know my words can be adversarial. I internally struggle with softening phrases that take away from my credibility. Ultimately, I use some. For the sake of tone.


What if every one of us imagined LHC as a big table in a coffee house, and every poster as at least a fellow student of hair, if not a friendly voice?

[LadyCelestina]

I think this approach only works until it's comfortable for the person complaining. I mean you should ideally be using some sort of sun protection on a daily basis as supported by research, yet I bet at least half of you "un-naturalness supporters" reading this are already thinking of replying with something along the lines that nobody is born with a bottle of sunscreen in their hand etc. :D

It's hard for me to accept the sunscreen,too ;)

[Wildcat Diva]

Thanks for the reminder. I am out in the sun right now and need to apply sunscreen!

[neko_kawaii]

So far as shampoo/conditioner, yes. You are not wasting.

The manufacturers, given the bottle size limitations you have mentioned in other threads, do hold some blame for too many bottles.
That's why I asked the maker of my shampoo (distributed across most of the US, but somewhat local to me so I was willing to go pick up) , about gallons.
I knew that my high dilution would allow that one large bottle to replace many smaller ones. They are almost the same thickness.
If I'd not been able to do that, another shampoo, one I can refill at a shop, would have earned a spot in my shower.
Goes back to my ecological argument.

Is bulk refill practiced anywhere in the EU for body/haircare items?

Yep, bulk refil for many products are available so consumers can reuse containers or even choose their own containers (some feel glass is most long lasting/least environmental impact). I'm so lucky to have a co-op near by that provides many bulk items and is happy to weigh empty containers before they are filled.

The opening quote reminds me of the Paleo Diet and how many practitioners know very little about real paleo humans, their diet, or lifestyle. It has become a catch phrase that means something new and can be tweaked and interpreted by both its users and critics. Natural strikes me the same way, as does Organic. I buy most of my veggies from a CSA where the farmers are not certified organic due mostly to monetary reasons, but they practice what they feel are the best ways of growing food for the land they work with. I value that over an Organic label. That is me. Others have other reasons for the choices they make.

There is always a danger with taking catchy phrases like the opening quote out of context, or of throwing out a catchy phrase without fully explaining its intent.

I'm always amused by how Hippie is used as an insult. Now Crunchy is an insult out of some mouths and embraced by others. The first time I heard Crunchy used that way it was paired with another word that meant the opposite. Anyone know it?

[neko_kawaii]

I think this approach only works until it's comfortable for the person complaining. I mean you should ideally be using some sort of sun protection on a daily basis as supported by research, yet I bet at least half of you "un-naturalness supporters" reading this are already thinking of replying with something along the lines that nobody is born with a bottle of sunscreen in their hand etc. :D

It's hard for me to accept the sunscreen,too ;)

No sunscreen, please! Long sleeves and a hat! *draws a line in the sand* *grins*

[truepeacenik]

Yep, bulk refil for many products are available so consumers can reuse containers or even choose their own containers (some feel glass is most long lasting/least environmental impact). I'm so lucky to have a co-op near by that provides many bulk items and is happy to weigh empty containers before they are filled.

The opening quote reminds me of the Paleo Diet and how many practitioners know very little about real paleo humans, their diet, or lifestyle. It has become a catch phrase that means something new and can be tweaked and interpreted by both its users and critics. Natural strikes me the same way, as does Organic. I buy most of my veggies from a CSA where the farmers are not certified organic due mostly to monetary reasons, but they practice what they feel are the best ways of growing food for the land they work with. I value that over an Organic label. That is me. Others have other reasons for the choices they make.

There is always a danger with taking catchy phrases like the opening quote out of context, or of throwing out a catchy phrase without fully explaining its intent.

I'm always amused by how Hippie is used as an insult. Now Crunchy is an insult out of some mouths and embraced by others. The first time I heard Crunchy used that way it was paired with another word that meant the opposite. Anyone know it?


Crunchy Conservatives.


Zinc based sunscreen for me.
Skin cancer sucks. I'm looking at a spot that needs to go right now.

[neko_kawaii]

Crunchy Conservatives.

Heh

I wonder if it was Smooth, but the explanation of Crunchy was Granola (clear Hippie connections) and not peanut butter.

[EdG]

I try to go outdoors only in the early morning or late evening.
Ed

[pailin]

Sunscreen AND the long sleeves and a hat for me, please!

[Hairkay]

Crunchy Conservatives.


Zinc based sunscreen for me.
Skin cancer sucks. I'm looking at a spot that needs to go right now.

This is first time I'm hearing crunchy used that way.

I just stay out of hot sun if I can plus rely on dark skin protecting a bit more and use hats. Yes there's the allergy problem with sunscreen too. I also still need to get my vitamin D sun time.

[truepeacenik]

This is where Truepecenik admits she had read one article in the National Review.
Adams County, (CO) library district, now called Rangeview Library system, Bennett, Colorado.
The library was basically a manufactured home (think big trailer house).
Most of my books were interlibrary loan.
They had a stunning magazine collection, however, and "Crunchy Conservatives" was the title piece in a 2002 issue of NR.
I sat there and read it, amazed that maybe I could find fellow Eco-aware people in the surrounding area. And beyond the cheap or DIY/ off grid whacadoodles out on the road to Elbert County.

A few years later I met some in the flesh. One became speaker of the house in the Colorado Assembly.

Here's a reprint of the article that spawned the book:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/214320/crunchy-cons-rod-dreher

[LadyCelestina]

I use combination sunscreen right now, but want to replace it with something more cosmetically elegant ...possibly... not sure how my skin will take it since I'm supposed to go on Accutane and the cosmetically elegant sunscreens are typically filled with alcohol. I don't like hats and long sleeves because it's so hot in the summer. As I said still struggling to come to terms with the fact that the sun is trying to kill me and I wish I could remain in blissful ignorance but - cannot unsee :( :D

[SparrowWings]

Here's a reprint of the article that spawned the book:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/214320/crunchy-cons-rod-dreher
I had never heard of this before. That is a really interesting article; thank you for posting it! Now if political parties could work properly again, rather than having only two (large/influential enough to matter, anyhow), each of which go as far and narrow-mindedly to opposite sides as they can manage...

But that's as far as I'll go with politics, since that's not what this thread is about.

[lapushka]

So far as shampoo/conditioner, yes. You are not wasting.

The manufacturers, given the bottle size limitations you have mentioned in other threads, do hold some blame for too many bottles.
That's why I asked the maker of my shampoo (distributed across most of the US, but somewhat local to me so I was willing to go pick up) , about gallons.
I knew that my high dilution would allow that one large bottle to replace many smaller ones. They are almost the same thickness.
If I'd not been able to do that, another shampoo, one I can refill at a shop, would have earned a spot in my shower.
Goes back to my ecological argument.

Is bulk refill practiced anywhere in the EU for body/haircare items?

Not that I know of. And sure I would buy bigger containers if they had them. :shrug: I mean, why would I waste my money on smaller containers (they overcharge for these anyway).

[Wildcat Diva]

Crunchy Conservatives.


...
Also...
(Meant to quote Neko here, fail.)

What does homebirthing, cloth diapering, extended breastfeeding, tandem nursing, non vaxing, babywearing and homeschooling get me? A card to carry?. Nah, my concealed carry permit and other leanings negates it. Identity crisis!!! (Ah and then I actually read the article and see that this is just what is discussed).

ETA:

Whoops just read MW's very complimentary and super insightful post edit addition (keeping it real I see. :D. I cannot disagree with you. Your kind words stunned me so!)
Yay! I get to hang out with MW! But first I have to trick her to come home... Uh, we have our very own separate power grid? That's a plus, right? I have a feeling we'll never get you back. I'm currently in the vicinity of Austin suburbs, surely that is crunchy enough, no? No. dammit!!!

You are very sweet and kind as usual.
(And I need all the friends I can get).

(And, really... Still feeling your nice words. *smiles, waves*)

ETA: again.
Yes, that article nails it. The contrasts continue. I'm posting and surfing while my metalhead teen drives me South again home in the Big Truck blaring old school Run DMC.

ETA: again! And the "wrongness" roller coaster ride continues. I mean truepeacenik, not MW (Wrong forum!!!!). See people, is "natural" brain really better!?! Clearly coffee is needed. And keep those psychedelics away from my coffee cup, people, I see your sneaky slight of hand trick.

[Wildcat Diva]

Oh and on a "let's do natural" bent, regarding mosquito repellant, just live where I live, and you
will put evil DEET on yourself and your kids real quick.

[Hypnotica]

Re sunscreen - I cover myself and ALWAYS use sunscreen on my face. Sun damage is accumulative - I don't use face base products and likes skincare (AHA, BHA, retinols) because I want to have good nice skin on my face (my face is prone to clog up, urgh).

But this reminds me of a FB group about living toxin free - some parents in that group uses oils as sunscreen instead of sunscreen because sunscreen is "toxic".......argh!
t
My favourite pet peeve is people that don't vax their kids because they still believe it causes autism and that it is good to have the measles because "it strengthens the immune system". As a person on the spectrum, it is pretty offensive when people prefer their kids to get the measles or whooping cough before autism.....

[henné]

My favourite pet peeve is people that don't vax their kids because they still believe it causes autism and that it is good to have the measles because "it strengthens the immune system". As a person on the spectrum, it is pretty offensive when people prefer their kids to get the measles or whooping cough before autism.....

Oh, mine too. It's insane how long it's taking to kill that BS ...

[Hypnotica]

Oh, mine too. It's insane how long it's taking to kill that BS ...

They basically prefer their children to risk getting a disease that in some cases are deadly. And often leads to lifelong damage/serious secondary infections.....just because they think autism is worse. Yeah - not offensive at all. *sarcasm*

[lapushka]

My favourite pet peeve is people that don't vax their kids because they still believe it causes autism and that it is good to have the measles because "it strengthens the immune system". As a person on the spectrum, it is pretty offensive when people prefer their kids to get the measles or whooping cough before autism.....

Especially when you know what measles can do to the body! Back in my day there was no vaccination against measles, you had to go through it. Thank God for progress.

[spidermom]

With vaccines as with most everything else, there are pros and cons. Vaccines carry risk; the medical establishment knows that.
The diseases we vaccinate against also carry risk. I'm comfortable with people making the choice which risk they're willing to take.
We vaccinated; nothing bad happened, except my granddaughter got some pretty scary-looking welts from the second chicken pox vaccine.

[Wildcat Diva]

Thank you for your understanding words, Spidermom.

[Hypnotica]

With vaccines as with most everything else, there are pros and cons. Vaccines carry risk; the medical establishment knows that.
The diseases we vaccinate against also carry risk. I'm comfortable with people making the choice which risk they're willing to take.
We vaccinated; nothing bad happened, except my granddaughter got some pretty scary-looking welts from the second chicken pox vaccine.

Certainly - you can have bad reactions to anything you put in your body (the triple vaccine made my arm swell up and itch for a week) but there is no correlation between autism and vaccines. To not vax because of fear of autism is in my opinion very unlogical.

[Wildcat Diva]

But that is not the only reason people decline vaccines. And, on a related note, one way I think of it is... just because something is not proven correlated (I am actually NOT speaking of autism here) doesn't mean it is not connected. As an aside, I will never say that I am the most logical person.

[spidermom]

To my satisfaction, a link between autism and vaccines has been satisfactorily disproven. Some are not so sure there isn't a cover-up involved. An acquaintance that I have a great deal of respect for tells me that her son was normal in every way until he received the MMR vaccine. Literally overnight he went from being cheerful, interactive, and chatty to sullen, withdrawn, no meaningful vocalization, and making repetitive motions (hand flapping). I can see why she directly attributes the change to the vaccine. I can't argue that point, especially not with her. I wasn't there. Now she tirelessly scours the Internet for articles disputing the value of vaccines and posts a new one nearly every day on Facebook.

[Wildcat Diva]

My son has a recently shown up autoimmune disease. Now I have long pondered what can be the cause of the increase of these generally, to which he is genetically predisposed (my mom, his grandma, has lupus). Now, I didn't really suspect that he would get one, but at age ten, he did. An "idiopathic" one, which means they have no clue where it came from, the cause. Now, my mind rests easier a little, because my decision to Vax didn't trigger the disease with a vaccine administered to him, 100% certain.

This is kind of the thinking that gets mY mind spinning.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/autoimmune-disorders/can-vaccines-cause-autoimmune-disorders.aspx

[spidermom]

My son has a recently shown up autoimmune disease. Now I have long pondered what can be the cause of the increase of these generally, to which he is genetically predisposed (my mom, his grandma, has lupus). Now, I didn't really suspect that he would get one, but at age ten, he did. An "idiopathic" one, which means they have no clue where it came from, the cause. Now, my mind rests easier a little, because my decision to Vax didn't trigger the disease with a vaccine administered to him, 100% certain.

This is kind of the thinking that gets mY mind spinning.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/autoimmune-disorders/can-vaccines-cause-autoimmune-disorders.aspx

I can see how it would. Sometimes we human beings seem to be the subjects of so many experiments besides vaccines that it's hard to separate them out - genetically modified food, herbicides, pesticides, additives of all kinds, traffic, electromagnetic waves, mutated viruses .... I could name so many more, but you get the idea. It's likely combinations of these insults that lead to the most unpleasant consequences. (P.S: I have a chronic autoimmune disease, too, and it wasn't associated with receiving a vaccine.)

[MandyBeth]

I'm one of those who has mentioned using up a bottle of conditioner in a week. It's for my kid with hyper curly hair. As of now, we still need to wash her hair daily. Her hair is incredibly long, as in on the floor when wet. I use as much conditioner as needed to actually be able to detangle her hair. If I don't dilute the conditioner, it'd be a bottle or more daily.

Soap doesn't work on her hair. Water only is marginally ok, once, but can't be repeated because it's too hard to detangle her hair. Sebum only is a joke at her length with curls that can't be brushed. I've just gone through the "natural"methods. Granted, soap or water only might work if she wanted to go natural and have locs. But she doesn't want that. So conditioner only it is, and I'll use it as I need. Because I'm still Mom and the one helping her with her hair. Not anyone on the internet.

Meanwhile, my boys use up shampoo a bit fast, but at least they're using it. I do not care further. And the shampoo my other daughter and I share - a bottle lasts us about 10 weeks. Conditioner averages 6 weeks or so. I've tried natural methods. My hair might like them. My scalp however likes to riot and open, bleeding sores are not positive in my world.

[henné]

Our entire lives are pretty much filled with exercises in risk analysis ... I think on one hand it doesn't help to obsess (like I sometimes do), but on the other hand, just being totally apathetic is probably even worse. But I understand both. I'm actually glad that the vaccinations are being questioned and tested. There is always space for improvement.

I'm fine with vaccines even though they make me very nervous as a mother of two little ones (1 and 5), but I spread them out (it's common practice to give two shots in one day, but I make two appointments and the kids get one vac per visit), for example.

[MandyBeth]

One thing with autoimmune diseases - not including my nightmare case - several doctors have mentioned it's not just a large increase, it's also a better understanding of some diseases and a better diagnosis of some diseases. Now add in the ability to save preterm infants, and you throw another crapshoot in there. Even 10 years earlier, I wouldn't have survived birth. Hell, I shouldn't have anyway when I was born. It wasn't long after that age of viability got pushed younger and younger.

In my family, I'm the lone odd ball who has thrown autoimmune diseases "early", my cousins all throw them early 40s and on. Which is also why we didn't see it in my mom's generation - 4 of the 5 had stage 4 cancer by the normal range for autoimmune diseases ages in our family. The 1 who hasn't had cancer, 49 when he developed autoimmune disease. The cancer was environmental, as it wasn't common at all before, it's not in other parts of the family, and it hasn't picked up in the next generation at all. The autoimmune mess is somehow genetic.

[01]

Water only is marginally ok, once, but can't be repeated because it's too hard to detangle her hair. Sebum only is a joke at her length with curls that can't be brushed.
I get your pain. My scalp is great but hair is so dry on WO. What finally helped me (just a few days ago) was sleeping with hair wrapped in silk scarf, then they somehow magically got oily. But that's new for me, during my all WO attempts it was dryland. I sympathize with not being able to brush too. Soap is annoying and builds up on my hair.

[Sknightlady]

So I have started doing WO but I am very aware that It's not for everybody. I like it so far but I'm an odd ball when it comes to things like that. My family still uses shampoo and conditioner and I wouldn't dream making that decision for my husband or our children at their ages now. When they get older I would support them in trying alternate methods but that would be for them to decide.

[Jadestorm]

I ran across an argument for using nothing sudsy on skin or hair that contained the phrase "nobody is born with a bottle of shampoo in the hand" as if that alone is proof that we shouldn't have it
I agree that's not a well thought through 'argument'. If that were the case, it would be true for everything. For everything we own or need really. Or do they not participate in normal life and run around naked and barefoot picking berries off of trees in order to be able to feed themselves for example?

I can totally understand the idea of not wanting to put stuff on or in your body that could be dangerous (chemicals, additives etc,...) out of health considerations, environmental considerations etc. Heck, I'm like that myself, to a degree.
However, being overly extreme in any area is usually not a good thing. It's up to people to live the life they choose though. As long as they don't rigidly try to force their beliefs onto everyone else (as I cannot stand anyone doing that about anything. It's fine to defend or explain your belief, but you can't force someone to agree nor should you try to).

[truepeacenik]

My mom had me get several vaccines at once. Actually, imminent change of health insurance did, but that how it worked out.
No reaction.
So, months later, I get MMR vaccine. That night, I had my first seizure. I'd say life long, I've had around 100.
So, when I had a kid, I decided to put certain ones off, hoping that separation and more time for an immune system to strengthen would help.
Kid gets shot. Kid has seizure. Thankfully, only one.

We talked about this, in the genetic disease discussion (that I had about a year after birds and bees). Should kid spawn, the plan is also to wait on MMR.

likley completely unconnected, flu shots give me mini flu.
mini flu is still better than two weeks or more of influenza, but I have to time them.
plus I get some soup ready.

[Hypnotica]

My mom had me get several vaccines at once. Actually, imminent change of health insurance did, but that how it worked out.
No reaction.
So, months later, I get MMR vaccine. That night, I had my first seizure. I'd say life long, I've had around 100.
So, when I had a kid, I decided to put certain ones off, hoping that separation and more time for an immune system to strengthen would help.
Kid gets shot. Kid has seizure. Thankfully, only one.

We talked about this, in the genetic disease discussion (that I had about a year after birds and bees). Should kid spawn, the plan is also to wait on MMR.

likley completely unconnected, flu shots give me mini flu.
mini flu is still better than two weeks or more of influenza, but I have to time them.
plus I get some soup ready.

Well, you are putting a foreign agent in your body and the immune system responds - as it should be. So you are getting a false flu :D

[lapushka]

I can totally understand the idea of not wanting to put stuff on or in your body that could be dangerous (chemicals, additives etc,...) out of health considerations, environmental considerations etc. Heck, I'm like that myself, to a degree.
However, being overly extreme in any area is usually not a good thing. It's up to people to live the life they choose though. As long as they don't rigidly try to force their beliefs onto everyone else (as I cannot stand anyone doing that about anything. It's fine to defend or explain your belief, but you can't force someone to agree nor should you try to).

This. ^^ Very much so.

[truepeacenik]

Well, you are putting a foreign agent in your body and the immune system responds - as it should be. So you are getting a false flu :D
Still, it shouldn't be dissociation, high fever, wheezing and no energy. It wasn't simply feeling bad, it was interfering with desk work.
I do chose the years to get the shot, too. Low risk years, I don't get one unless my clientele is higher risk that year.
If I was still in an office, I'd skip it altogether.

[Winterwitch]

I am so done with greenwashing in general.
I know most people don't take it as far as no toilet paper or soap.
But I'm even fed up with claims that "fragrance" is the most dangerous ingredient in beauty products. Yes certain fragrance compounds can make you sneeze or break you out. But the vast majority of allergenic (and frankly unsafe in very high concentrations,) fragrance chemicals (coumarin, linalool,) occur naturally in essential oils (tonka bean, lavender,) which are frequently praised as completely healthy and "natural" by people shunning synthetic fragrance compounds. Some synthetic fragrance compounds (alpha & beta ionone, for example) are completely harmless and are even permitted as flavorings in food (whereas coumarin is not.)

[Hairkay]

I am so done with greenwashing in general.
I know most people don't take it as far as no toilet paper or soap.
But I'm even fed up with claims that "fragrance" is the most dangerous ingredient in beauty products. Yes certain fragrance compounds can make you sneeze or break you out. But the vast majority of allergenic (and frankly unsafe in very high concentrations,) fragrance chemicals (coumarin, linalool,) occur naturally in essential oils (tonka bean, lavender,) which are frequently praised as completely healthy and "natural" by people shunning synthetic fragrance compounds. Some synthetic fragrance compounds (alpha & beta ionone, for example) are completely harmless and are even permitted as flavorings in food (whereas coumarin is not.)

I avoid fragrances, natural or otherwise even essential oils because I'll have an allergic reaction to them all.

[Lizzie.torp]

I've always been more on the natural side of things but I'm realizing it isn't very realistic. I'd need the time to make everything myself from scratch if I wanted to avoid anything unnatural. I'm also realizing it should be about safe ingredients and often times safe ingredients aren't natural. I do still look up all ingredients on the EWG cosmetics database.

[Wildcat Diva]

Still, it shouldn't be dissociation, high fever, wheezing and no energy. It wasn't simply feeling bad, it was interfering with desk work.
I do chose the years to get the shot, too. Low risk years, I don't get one unless my clientele is higher risk that year.
If I was still in an office, I'd skip it altogether.

Every time this issue pops up I do more reading and mind spinning. I can always find something that adds to and challenges my thinking on the issue, been thinking on it for 16 years now... Stuff like this that I can find doesn't read like a "mommy blog."
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/an-honest-look-at-the-historical-evidence-that-vaccines-eliminated-diseases/
Much of the stuff I find on pro-vaccine most often read like they are trying to get info across to someone who had been brain-damaged. Sigh.

But then again, I have participated in threads on this topic, over and again so I read again and then go on hiatus before I over obsess and self destruct.

[butter52]

For me natural means absolutely nothing. A chemical is a chemical, doesnt matter if it comes from trees or labs.

What does mean something to me is if things are ethically sourced, not animal tested ( if that info can be available, you know half if the time it cant be trusted), if it gives me eccema ( fragance, be it natural or not).

ETA: seizures on a vaccine are a serious secondary effect I would say. But getting the flu when you vaccinate for the flu is totally normal. You are giving your body a tamed dose of flu viruses so that it triggers the inmune response and you have the antibodies ready if you come across a non tamed virus.

[henné]

Every time this issue pops up I do more reading and mind spinning. I can always find something that adds to and challenges my thinking on the issue, been thinking on it for 16 years now... Stuff like this that I can find doesn't read like a "mommy blog."
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/an-honest-look-at-the-historical-evidence-that-vaccines-eliminated-diseases/
Much of the stuff I find on pro-vaccine most often read like they are trying to get info across to someone who had been brain-damaged. Sigh.

But then again, I have participated in threads on this topic, over and again so I read again and then go on hiatus before I over obsess and self destruct.

I'm the same ... From time to time I read a very good anti-vax argument and the wheels in my brain start spinning, until I read a news story about an outbreak of measles or something else ... and then the wheels stop. I've decided to just accept the possible danger, as impossible as it is ... scary. What danger is more likely? Illness/negative reaction?

[Upside Down]

Well I will say that I am not immune to rubella so when I was pregnant I was pretty scared of my friend's kids that mingle with other kids and haven't had mmr yet.

And I can imagine the scare is even greater with a second pregnancy if your first is in kindergarden.

Fyi, wikipedia:

"Infection during early pregnancy may result in a child born with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) or miscarriage. Symptoms of CRS include problems with the eyes such as cataracts, ears such as deafness, heart, and brain. Problems are rare after the 20th week of pregnancy."

While I do see that vaccines can be a danger I am strongly pro vac, because we live in a society, all mingling together, sharing germs.

[Wildcat Diva]

Henne, I do the same but then I look into the outbreak in detail and then start freaking out and looking at the stats behind the outbreak/freak out and then read all over again, read CDC site and then calm the frick down after I have come full circle to where I started.

The immune system is not well understood. Who knows what effect may have happened in my (At risk for immune problems) kids if I made a different choice, can anyone know for sure? So far, that choice has not caused destruction in my home. Maybe they will get exactly the same result, maybe it would be worse if I overall vaxxed, maybe no difference. I err on the side of numbers/potential with "first do no harm" as a principle.

When middle kid got a piece of glass embedded in foot? I didn't fight a teatnus shot at the ER. Sixteen year old and I are taking several episodes of learning to consider administering the meningitis one. The CDC site is the one we look at the most.

We are not sickly people at all. Kids each have four years of breast milk in them as a first "immunization." Oldest watches all his friends get sick and say, "Wow, I have no clue what that is like." Probable flu scare in a friend at the end of a sleepover promoted Lysol spray purchases (we spray bombed kid's car where the infected friend rode). Luckily nobody else got sick after that. There are no guarantees, I know.

And... Just went to the WHO site to look at stats for Rubella in my country. I do not fear spreading it to anyone in looking at numbers in my very large country. My kids are homeschooled as an aside as well. But these stats are many years delayed so who know what the numbers are currently. I think diseases will all wax and wane too. The numbers do not stay stagnant. My choices can change with new data. What is messed up is if I cannot predict something and I figured wrong and it is too late. Then that is on me. And the people whose lives I ruined. However, I actually think that I put more people at risk with other behaviors I engage in like snacking when I am behind the wheel. I can take this to the extreme of analytical consideration that my brain is capable of and obsess and then freak out.

Maybe someday I will regret not just doing what is currently recommended but that day has not come yet. Many discussions with my kids' pediatrician end not with pressure to vaccinate them, but with her steering me to the CDC site to make up my own mind.

[henné]

I had every single childhood disease that my kids are nowadays vaccinated against ... mumps, rubella, measles, chickenpox, scarletina, even complications from scarlet fever where I was held in the infectious disease part of the hospital for a couple of weeks when I was 3 years old (I couldn't see my mom, still have bad memories from that one - and they threw away my toys) ... so I am truly and fully immune. Sometimes I wonder if it were better if my kids also acquired this protection naturally, but right now, the only natural protection they will have is against chickenpox as we don't vaccinate against that here in Sweden and truth be told that illness is extremely rarely dangerous at all and there are still chickenpox parties around here ...

Btw, I was vaccinated against tuberculosis and had a reaction - the site of the shot started almost rotting (it was so gross) now it looks like I have a somewhat healed up gunshot in my shoulder - I sometimes run with it when someone asks me, muhehehe.

I was also vaccinated against polio ...

I also got a round of 'some' shots when I got me my green card back in the day.

I'm also about to vaccinate myself and my daughter against tick borne encephalitis. This place is lousy with ticks.

What automatically gives me a 'what the hell' reaction is the combined hexa vaccine - really? six diseases at once administered to a small child? How can that NOT be bad ... but I vaccinate anyway, of course ... it's not like I can choose against it because my kid getting some of those diseases would sure as hell not be a good thing ... Plus, what the heck do I really know?

[Wildcat Diva]

That what the heck do we know thought prompts me to start learning what it is that we do know (and questioning that with a critical mind) and comparing it to what we don't know and then making the best decision that I can (with a bent towards momma bear) as I feel that I have the responsibility to do so. Why I locked onto this issue and not other ones as much, I cannot tell you, but this is the state of my existence as I experience it.


And Henne, your question is a GREAT one! The "which is more likely, illness or negative reaction?" I use that one all the time myself. Most of the time I see that the illness is NOT likely and what constitutes a "negative reaction" (to my definition) is an unknown. Maybe a "negative reaction" will be seen in 10 years later because I've introduced something my kid didn't need and was potentially harmful down the line?" I don't assume a negative reaction will happen five minutes or five days after the shot. There is a LOT we don't know just yet, and I am pretty protective of my kids' bloodstreams.

[MandyBeth]

I'm pro-vax. But, I am extremely immunosuppressed. The various diseases are easily fatal to me, and I easily pick up bugs. I typically have a minor reaction to any vaccine, it's manageable. My kids also lack immunity from breast feeding, which I do feel sets a child up for better health over life potentially. Now add in, we spend far too much time in doctor appointments and hospitals, where bugs run rampant. So, for us, vaccines aren't a debate.

Unfortunately, the number of anti-vax I have heard who are actually well educated on the topic - erm. WD here tends to be it. The vocal majority are unfortunately little more than mindless sheep who heard some faux-lebrity blather on something they have no clue on, and now vaccines are scary evil....... Are most of them like that? I'd hope not. But the idiots are sure loud and obnoxious on it, so really, until Dr Wakefield is discredited by the loud anti-vax crowd also, I have serious qualms about how educated the group is.

[Wildcat Diva]

I actually usually get several private texts from like-minded LHC friends once I start posting on here about this stuff because most people I share opinions with tend to not publicly debate.

Whoooo, just lost twenty minutes of typing on the Iphone by accidentally swiping the wrong way right here. I had a lot to say but no way I'm typing all that again. Sucks.

That "sheep" term, it's funny, in my house we tend to use it a lot, and it's probably used in the opposite direction from where others point it.

One thing on the loud obnoxious anti-vaxx sheep: a broken clock is right twice a day. (By this I mean, they may share the same decision as me, even though our reasons for doing so/ and decision making process may be different. It's the same decision. I wonder, does that make me less "wrong" than them? Exactly equally wrong? Hmmmm. Or maybe I am worse because I took the time to really get into it and read it yet still come up with the "stupid choice." Maybe that should be taken as worse somehow.)

I appreciate the nice words of MB and TPK saying I am not dumb... but give me time, I'll blather on and show my a$$ sooner or later if not already.

[Hypnotica]

Every time this issue pops up I do more reading and mind spinning. I can always find something that adds to and challenges my thinking on the issue, been thinking on it for 16 years now... Stuff like this that I can find doesn't read like a "mommy blog."
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/an-honest-look-at-the-historical-evidence-that-vaccines-eliminated-diseases/
Much of the stuff I find on pro-vaccine most often read like they are trying to get info across to someone who had been brain-damaged. Sigh.

But then again, I have participated in threads on this topic, over and again so I read again and then go on hiatus before I over obsess and self destruct.

When it comes to the topic of vaccinations, be VERY careful of what you read. I ran that site through Google and it seems that it has a bad rap for misleading people.

[lapushka]

Is this turning into another vax thread, I hope not. ;) :lol:

[Laura-Jane]

As for the original question about beauty products, to me labelling them "natural" sounds somewhat ironic.
"Natural" to me means using products from home (mostly from the kitchen) instead of beauty products. Using olive or canola oil for hair and skin, ACV to rinse, maybe a honey-egg-oil mask for hair, lemon and chamomile tea to lightening blonde hair, coffee rinse for darker hair etc.

To me it sounds somewhat specious to buy a "natural" product that is supposed to contain what I have in my kitchen instead of just using what I have in my kitchen. The product had to be manufactured, bottled, shipped - using what I already have at hand sounds much more environmentally friendly. Also,a lot of "natural" products do contain some stuff unknown to me that I probably would not want in my hair/ on my skin if I knew what it was and did in detail.

On the other hand I am not that skeptical about modern medicine. I try to take as little as possible, but I believe to really need it - after consulting a doctor, that is - I will take it. Same goes for vaccination. It has worked for years and some diseases our grandparents or great-grandparens had to fear are now less of a threat to us. Yes, home remedies are also a great thing, if you know what you are doing and if your are not in immediate danger. Home remedies for headache, cold, or muscle tension are great, home remedies for diabetes or severe acute health problems not so much.


Best,
Laura-Jane

[lapushka]

On the other hand I am not that skeptical about modern medicine. I try to take as little as possible, but I believe to really need it - after consulting a doctor, that is - I will take it. Same goes for vaccination. It has worked for years and some diseases our grandparents or great-grandparens had to fear are now less of a threat to us. Yes, home remedies are also a great thing, if you know what you are doing and if your are not in immediate danger. Home remedies for headache, cold, or muscle tension are great, home remedies for diabetes or severe acute health problems not so much.

Depends on what you can use home remedies for, isn't it? Severe and chronic disease? Not so much.

[Wildcat Diva]

When it comes to the topic of vaccinations, be VERY careful of what you read. I ran that site through Google and it seems that it has a bad rap for misleading people.
Ok, I will. Still, the ideas brough forth make a lot of sense to me. And often the other side does a terrible job of using assumption statements that I am supposed to believe without question so I can't really move forward with those. And then the insulting, turnoffs of judgment and babyish language. A person really should try to find info to truly answer my questions in a satisfactory way, it's near impossible. And when I read things like a communication "flow chart" for doctors that is just designed to divert and distract and calm from parent questions rather than to squash supposed misinformation, on a MD site...
Still the CDC data should be good, right? And the WHO?


Is this turning into another vax thread, I hope not. ;) :lol:

I hope not, too, but I wasn't the one who started with OMG "those people" comments in that direction.

[Kiiruna]

Even though you're not the one who started it, Wildcat Diva, you're certainly continuing it :) No offense, of course! :blossom:
If you guys and gals want to discuss vaccinations I think you should start a new thread somewhere else.

[spidermom]

I think vaccination discussion is appropriate in a "taking natural too far" thread.

I've been getting high BP readings (low end of high, not crazy-high), and I don't want medication for it. I'd rather turn to weight loss and exercise, hard as it is to change that sedentary and grazing habit. Am I taking natural too far?

[lapushka]

I've been getting high BP readings (low end of high, not crazy-high), and I don't want medication for it. I'd rather turn to weight loss and exercise, hard as it is to change that sedentary and grazing habit. Am I taking natural too far?

A fluctuating BP is absolutely terrible. It's not the high BP that kills you, it's the fluctuating one that is the most dangerous. My grandma had a stroke due to it, because she refused to take her BP medication. Nature running its course and what have you. It was her decision, but she was also partly paralyzed and had the hardest time coping with life after her stroke.

[Eastbound&Down]

As for the original question about beauty products, to me labelling them "natural" sounds somewhat ironic.
"Natural" to me means using products from home (mostly from the kitchen) instead of beauty products. Using olive or canola oil for hair and skin, ACV to rinse, maybe a honey-egg-oil mask for hair, lemon and chamomile tea to lightening blonde hair, coffee rinse for darker hair etc.

To me it sounds somewhat specious to buy a "natural" product that is supposed to contain what I have in my kitchen instead of just using what I have in my kitchen. The product had to be manufactured, bottled, shipped - using what I already have at hand sounds much more environmentally friendly. Also,a lot of "natural" products do contain some stuff unknown to me that I probably would not want in my hair/ on my skin if I knew what it was and did in detail.
:scissors:
Best,
Laura-Jane

I feel the same about products being labeled as "natural". Most of the time, when I see that and then look at ingredients, most to the ingredients listed are things I can't pronounce haha! That being said, I do still use commercial S/C (HE) but I've steered towards using more oils and other natural things on my skin and hair.

[Robot Ninja]

I think vaccination discussion is appropriate in a "taking natural too far" thread.

I've been getting high BP readings (low end of high, not crazy-high), and I don't want medication for it. I'd rather turn to weight loss and exercise, hard as it is to change that sedentary and grazing habit. Am I taking natural too far?

Considering that high BP is often caused by lifestyle, changing that lifestyle is a better idea than going on medication that may have negative side effects.

Now, if you manage to make those lifestyle changes, your BP is still high to the point where it's dangerous, and you still refuse medication, that's taking it too far.

[lapushka]

Considering that high BP is often caused by lifestyle, changing that lifestyle is a better idea than going on medication that may have negative side effects.

Now, if you manage to make those lifestyle changes, your BP is still high to the point where it's dangerous, and you still refuse medication, that's taking it too far.

Yeah agree. If it *is* lifestyle, then when the lifestyle changes are made and it is still high, please take the medicine your doctor gives you. :flower:

My dad also has high blood pressure, and has a healthy lifestyle. He eats what we eat (and some snacking in between, but hey, he's a guy, he burns that like *snap*). He has high BP and has been on meds for a while. He's 69. How much of a life change can you still *really* expect at that point. If it is already healthy.

[ravenheather]

I am one of "those people" who choose not to vaccinate my children. It is my choice. I choose not to debate it because I don't care for the disrespectful attitudes I have come across in other threads. But I did my research and am comfortable with my decision. I respect others right to vaccinate and truly wish I received the same respect in return.

I also prefer natural means for most things. That being said my hair is not as natural in its preferences as I would like. Namely it likes amodimethicone and behentrimonium chloride. Still when a natural alternative is available that works as well and is affordable for me that will always be my first choice.

[Qz]

I'm skeptical of anything in the store that is marked "natural" or "organic" and try not to fall for that as a sales pitch. When I'm after something that is actually natural, I usually go to the least messed with source available to me.

I can remember about 30 years ago I thought it would be a great idea to use "natural" liquid soap that I found at the local co-op store. It turned out to be oil based and goshawful sticky junk. That pretty much ruined me on prepared "natural" products.... Since I like my soaps to actually clean me, it seemed pretty counterproductive.

[lillielil]

I'm skeptical of anything in the store that is marked "natural" or "organic" and try not to fall for that as a sales pitch. When I'm after something that is actually natural, I usually go to the least messed with source available to me.

I can remember about 30 years ago I thought it would be a great idea to use "natural" liquid soap that I found at the local co-op store. It turned out to be oil based and goshawful sticky junk. That pretty much ruined me on prepared "natural" products.... Since I like my soaps to actually clean me, it seemed pretty counterproductive.

All soap is oil based. That's what soap is - oil (fats) saponified by a strong base (lye). Anything else is a detergent. Neither is good or bad (depending on what you're looking for), but most things called "soap" are not soap.

My haircare is a mix of "natural" (simple oils and blends, salt as a scrub & for additional cleaning power) and "not natural" (surfectants, 'cones). And I'm a lot happier this way than I would be with "natural" hair - which I think of as SO or WO. If that works for you, great. On me it would be very unpleasant. Once my hair is healthier I may try homemade soap and see if it likes that, but for the time being I am happy with my commercial products. Other washing in my home is also a mix - I make my own laundry detergent and dishwasher detergent, but I don't know if you'd call the component ingredients (soap, borax, citric acid, washing soda, salt) natural or "chemical". Of course they are chemicals... And as I mentioned in another thread I wash my kid in oatmeal. What I didn't mention is that while he's soaking in his oatmeal bath he is usually scribbling with bath crayons full of all kinds of synthetic colors and stabilizers.

[lapushka]

All soap is oil based. That's what soap is - oil (fats) saponified by a strong base (lye). Anything else is a detergent. Neither is good or bad (depending on what you're looking for), but most things called "soap" are not soap.

My haircare is a mix of "natural" (simple oils and blends, salt as a scrub & for additional cleaning power) and "not natural" (surfectants, 'cones). And I'm a lot happier this way than I would be with "natural" hair - which I think of as SO or WO. If that works for you, great. On me it would be very unpleasant. Once my hair is healthier I may try homemade soap and see if it likes that, but for the time being I am happy with my commercial products. Other washing in my home is also a mix - I make my own laundry detergent and dishwasher detergent, but I don't know if you'd call the component ingredients (soap, borax, citric acid, washing soda, salt) natural or "chemical". Of course they are chemicals... And as I mentioned in another thread I wash my kid in oatmeal. What I didn't mention is that while he's soaking in his oatmeal bath he is usually scribbling with bath crayons full of all kinds of synthetic colors and stabilizers.

... isn't the "lightest" of things.

[lillielil]

... isn't the "lightest" of things.

I'm not sure what you mean by "lightest". Do you mean "least harsh"? If that's the case, no. Neither borax nor washing soda are gentle. However, both help to get my clothes and my dishes clean in a very economical way, in spite of having terrible water.

[lapushka]

I'm not sure what you mean by "lightest". Do you mean "least harsh"? If that's the case, no. Neither borax nor washing soda are gentle. However, both help to get my clothes and my dishes clean in a very economical way, in spite of having terrible water.

Borax is pretty harsh an ingredient, that's what I meant. Harsher than common detergents. So I hardly see where you benefit going natural.

[lillielil]

Borax is pretty harsh an ingredient, that's what I meant. Harsher than common detergents. So I hardly see where you benefit going natural.

The major benefit is in the cost savings. A load of laundry costs about $0.25 with middle-of-the road conventional detergent. A load of laundry with my homemade detergent costs around $0.02. And I can tweak my formula to work best in my water, which saves some wear and tear on my clothes because I don't have to re-wash, which I often did with conventional detergent. Over the course of a year that's a savings of about $100 (calculated as 8 loads per week, which I'm sorry to say is about what I do). With dishwasher detergent the savings are similar.

As far as being a "harsh" ingredient, I'm using it to get my stuff clean, so I obviously want something other than pure, gentle water. I don't know why you say it is harsher than common detergents, because it is a common detergent. Maybe you are thinking of boric acid? In terms of PH, borax is a 9.3, which is comparable to most laundry detergents. Also keep in mind that it is only one component in a recipe. I treat it with care, the same way I would conventional products. Anything with borax and/or washing soda is kept in a sealed, childproof container out of reach of animals and kids.

[lapushka]

The major benefit is in the cost savings. A load of laundry costs about $0.25 with middle-of-the road conventional detergent. A load of laundry with my homemade detergent costs around $0.02. And I can tweak my formula to work best in my water, which saves some wear and tear on my clothes because I don't have to re-wash, which I often did with conventional detergent. Over the course of a year that's a savings of about $100 (calculated as 8 loads per week, which I'm sorry to say is about what I do). With dishwasher detergent the savings are similar.

As far as being a "harsh" ingredient, I'm using it to get my stuff clean, so I obviously want something other than pure, gentle water. I don't know why you say it is harsher than common detergents, because it is a common detergent. Maybe you are thinking of boric acid? In terms of PH, borax is a 9.3, which is comparable to most laundry detergents. Also keep in mind that it is only one component in a recipe. I treat it with care, the same way I would conventional products. Anything with borax and/or washing soda is kept in a sealed, childproof container out of reach of animals and kids.

Is this the same Borax commonly used to pre-soak stains and such?

[lillielil]

Is this the same Borax commonly used to pre-soak stains and such?

Yep, same stuff. Commonly used as a laundry add-in to boost cleaning power of regular detergents.

[butter52]

And Henne, your question is a GREAT one! The "which is more likely, illness or negative reaction?" I use that one all the time myself. Most of the time I see that the illness is NOT likely and what constitutes a "negative reaction" (to my definition) is an unknown. Maybe a "negative reaction" will be seen in 10 years later because I've introduced something my kid didn't need and was potentially harmful down the line?" I don't assume a negative reaction will happen five minutes or five days after the shot. There is a LOT we don't know just yet, and I am pretty protective of my kids' bloodstreams.

Sorry Im continuing the vax issue but I found this reaction/illness question very interesting. I think it does pose the question of if the anti vaxxer movement comes from a position of Priviledge.
As in only communities where the collective inmunity is sufficient to reduce the risk of illness enough anti vaxxing movements can be significant (i.e., other people in your community put their kids at risk of reaction so that you have the priviledge of making that choice). On the other hand, the experience of communities wich face life threatening diseases or individuals which are inmunodepressed or cant be vaccinated because of their condition or negative reaction is very different and they are can be put at risk by the decision of those priviledged ones.

[lapushka]

Yep, same stuff. Commonly used as a laundry add-in to boost cleaning power of regular detergents.

So that's my assumption of why it's probably harsher. I based what I said on that.

[lillielil]

So that's my assumption of why it's probably harsher. I based what I said on that.

Ah. The reason it works as a booster is that it converts some of the water to H2O2 (great for removing stains - that's what OxyClean is), acts as a PH buffer (helps maintain a stable alkaline PH), and helps emulsify fats. Also did a quick google and found that a number of liquid laundry products contain borax (sodium borate) already.

I'm also not sure how you're defining "harsh". My own assumption is that you mean that it has more cleansing power, but with a negative connotation. But I realized I should ask for clarification since assumptions never help! :flower:

[lapushka]

Ah. The reason it works as a booster is that it converts some of the water to H2O2 (great for removing stains - that's what OxyClean is), acts as a PH buffer (helps maintain a stable alkaline PH), and helps emulsify fats. Also did a quick google and found that a number of liquid laundry products contain borax (sodium borate) already.

I'm also not sure how you're defining "harsh". My own assumption is that you mean that it has more cleansing power, but with a negative connotation. But I realized I should ask for clarification since assumptions never help! :flower:

Hmm interesting. I'm learning new stuff here. Not that I know that much about it. My mom does the laundry around here. :) Nevertheless, it's always nice to know what goes into products. :)

[lillielil]

Hmm interesting. I'm learning new stuff here. Not that I know that much about it. My mom does the laundry around here. :) Nevertheless, it's always nice to know what goes into products. :)

Good stuff indeed :)

FWIW, this is the recipe I use for laundry detergent (by volume)

1 part soap
1 part borax
1 part washing soda

All measurements approximate. I shred the soap in a food processor, then add the other ingredients and process until it is all fine. Costs about nothing, and only needs 1 to 2 Tbsp per load.

My mom's recipe is even simpler. She makes soap, and just tosses any odd scraps into a jug with some water, then waits. She uses the liquid to wash her clothes.

[omega]

Natural...the best way to go!

[Qz]

All soap is oil based. That's what soap is - oil (fats) saponified by a strong base (lye). Anything else is a detergent. Neither is good or bad (depending on what you're looking for), but most things called "soap" are not soap.

My haircare is a mix of "natural" (simple oils and blends, salt as a scrub & for additional cleaning power) and "not natural" (surfectants, 'cones). And I'm a lot happier this way than I would be with "natural" hair - which I think of as SO or WO. If that works for you, great. On me it would be very unpleasant. Once my hair is healthier I may try homemade soap and see if it likes that, but for the time being I am happy with my commercial products. Other washing in my home is also a mix - I make my own laundry detergent and dishwasher detergent, but I don't know if you'd call the component ingredients (soap, borax, citric acid, washing soda, salt) natural or "chemical". Of course they are chemicals... And as I mentioned in another thread I wash my kid in oatmeal. What I didn't mention is that while he's soaking in his oatmeal bath he is usually scribbling with bath crayons full of all kinds of synthetic colors and stabilizers.

Lol I know, but I didn't expect the so called natural liquid soap to be a sticky gooey mess... evidently someone had a different idea about liquid soap than I... and I agree, my haircare (and other household stuff as well) is also a mixture. I'm happier when my hair is happy, and it likes commercial shampoo too. I do use oatmeal also in the bath on occasion, it's very soothing to the skin.

One of the semi-natural things I do once in a blue moon is put a gob of mayonaise in my hair and wind it up to soak it in. It does like that. I tried eggs once many years ago but if my hair liked it I don't remember, I sure didn't! I'm not anti chemical, I'm just a bit careful about the types and amounts I use. Some people swear by vinegar for cleaning a bathroom, for example, but I still feel better hitting it with a little chlorine bleach just to be sure...

[lapushka]

Good stuff indeed :)

FWIW, this is the recipe I use for laundry detergent (by volume)

1 part soap
1 part borax
1 part washing soda

All measurements approximate. I shred the soap in a food processor, then add the other ingredients and process until it is all fine. Costs about nothing, and only needs 1 to 2 Tbsp per load.

My mom's recipe is even simpler. She makes soap, and just tosses any odd scraps into a jug with some water, then waits. She uses the liquid to wash her clothes.

My mom uses washing soda in among the white loads (60°) with her regular detergent and fabric softener - we have a front loader. She just puts some in a hanky and ties the ends criss-cross so it's a pocket, then she puts it in the middle of the wash. It helps "purify" and sanitize she says, and it also helps with hard water deposits (softens the water).

[lillielil]

My mom uses washing soda in among the white loads (60°) with her regular detergent and fabric softener - we have a front loader. She just puts some in a hanky and ties the ends criss-cross so it's a pocket, then she puts it in the middle of the wash. It helps "purify" and sanitize she says, and it also helps with hard water deposits (softens the water).

Hooray for washing soda. It is a little-used cleaner in the US (certainly not available in all stores) but it can't be beat for washing in hard water! That is very clever to make a hanky pocket.

Now about that fabric softener...

[lapushka]

About washing soda... it has so many uses. When I used to have an infected toe (cut into it or something and then got infected), my mom always dissolved some washing soda (tablespoon full) in a small basin of water so I could soak that foot. It gets impurities right out, but you have to be patient with it. And if that doesn't help, go see a doctor (of course). But it always did the trick! It's a tip that goes right back to my great-great grandma.

[lillielil]

About washing soda... it has so many uses. When I used to have an infected toe (cut into it or something and then got infected), my mom always dissolved some washing soda (tablespoon full) in a small basin of water so I could soak that foot. It gets impurities right out, but you have to be patient with it. And if that doesn't help, go see a doctor (of course). But it always did the trick! It's a tip that goes right back to my great-great grandma.

Now this surprises me because washing soda is MUCH harsher than borax (just in terms of PH - 11 versus 9.3 or so) and is a strong skin irritant (wearing gloves when handling it is advised). Now baking soda on the other hand, has many home health uses.

[lapushka]

Now this surprises me because washing soda is MUCH harsher than borax (just in terms of PH - 11 versus 9.3 or so) and is a strong skin irritant (wearing gloves when handling it is advised). Now baking soda on the other hand, has many home health uses.

Wait we're talking the same product, right? Not caustic soda, and not bicarbonate, the one kind that's left... yeah, washing soda. I always used to have soft feet afterwards and it never stung wounds, so...

[lillielil]

I think we are, but let's check our formulas to be sure :laugh:

Caustic soda (lye) = NaOH
Washing soda (soda ash) = Na2CO3
Baking soda (bicarb) = NaHCO3

Interesting that you used it on infection. It must have been dilute enough that it didn't do any harm. Note I said you "should" use gloves when handling - personally I don't bother and have not had an adverse reaction to incidental exposure, and it is nowhere near as harmful as lye!

[lapushka]

I think we are, but let's check our formulas to be sure :laugh:

Caustic soda (lye) = NaOH
Washing soda (soda ash) = Na2CO3
Baking soda (bicarb) = NaHCO3

Interesting that you used it on infection. It must have been dilute enough that it didn't do any harm. Note I said you "should" use gloves when handling - personally I don't bother and have not had an adverse reaction to incidental exposure, and it is nowhere near as harmful as lye!

Yep, we're talking about the same thing! Yes, it was like one tablespoon (not a heaping one) on a full foot basin.

[Robi-Bird]

It's interesting to read that Borax is an alkali, it's commonly use to neutralize liquid soap (so obviously also alkali).

I'm not big on the natural thing. I like EOs but have fewer issues with FOs. REALLY love my preservatives and vaccinate for everything but the flu. Grandma got polio because they wouldn't vaccinate and I got whooping cough because I was undervaccinated. That was a lousy six months.

I do like adding oils to my hair care regime since they work better for me, thus far than any other leave in I have found. Traditional shampoo and conditioner are my friends though. Soap for the rest of me. I firmly believe that the advent of handwashing was one of the singular most important "discoveries" when it comes to medicine. No anti-bacterial crap for me - soap does very well.

[Wildcat Diva]

Sorry Im continuing the vax issue but I found this reaction/illness question very interesting. I think it does pose the question of if the anti vaxxer movement comes from a position of Priviledge.
As in only communities where the collective inmunity is sufficient to reduce the risk of illness enough anti vaxxing movements can be significant (i.e., other people in your community put their kids at risk of reaction so that you have the priviledge of making that choice). On the other hand, the experience of communities wich face life threatening diseases or individuals which are inmunodepressed or cant be vaccinated because of their condition or negative reaction is very different and they are can be put at risk by the decision of those priviledged ones.

Interesting comment butter. I would assume also that it depends not only on the community but the disease involved as well.

At first I thought you were talking about something different. I had already looked up some like characteristics of people who don't vaccinate in America, if you believe CNN: Non-Hispanic white, married couples in English speaking households, educated, with college degrees, covered by private insurance, and a greater than average income. I was interested to see that I hit every mark. Hmmmm.

[Robot Ninja]

At first I thought you were talking about something different. I had already looked up some like characteristics of people who don't vaccinate in America, if you believe CNN: Non-Hispanic white, married couples in English speaking households, educated, with college degrees, covered by private insurance, and a greater than average income. I was interested to see that I hit every mark. Hmmmm.

These are also the people who can afford to live a "clean" lifestyle, and would be likely to frequent websites that promote it, which would lead them to hippie-woo homeopathic "everything gives you cancer and big pharma is trying to kill you" types, which leads to the pseudo-science sites with statistics that might look legit but are carefully selected to support their position. I noticed you also homeschool (not that I blame you, considering the state of public schools in the US) and I wonder how much overlap there is between homeschoolers and anti-vaxxers. There seems to be a similar mindset behind both.

[Wildcat Diva]

There are lots of mind sets that go together. I was joking about this with someone I know and we were throwing out all the classifications.

It's hard to say that we should stereotype people, but I am firmly of the belief that stereotypes are based on real life oftentimes, even though I do not really care to be negatively stereotyped, I am okay to throw me out there under the bus. Why not?

Natural childbirth, homebirthing, breastfeeding, extended breastfeeding, tandem nursing, co-sleeping, cloth diapering, babywearing, Non-vaxxing, homeschooling... And gun toting. (Maybe that last one is an outlier).

But we have to be careful that we don't say that "all that group are the same." It's simply not true, and it is the "those idiots" mentality that seems to draw me in to say, really? Well, let's see about that. It also turns me off when I finally do find a site with good information that insults me as I try to educate myself more than the average "educated person."

I don't really care to be lumped in with the negative association "the anti-vaxx crowd" though. It's offensive, like I am some idiot breed of sheep that cannot think for myself and must be eliminated.

Soccer mom... I tried that one on... Didn't really fit for me.

[lilin]

I ran across an argument for using nothing sudsy on skin or hair that contained the phrase "nobody is born with a bottle of shampoo in the hand" as if that alone is proof that we shouldn't have it, and that's been bothering the crap out of me ever since. I don't remember who said it and this isn't an attack on a person but a challenge to the idea.

Nobody is born with soap in the hand either, but the invention and use of it has been invaluable in stopping the spread of disease through hospital wards. Back in the 1800s, nobody washed their hands or changed filthy clothing between patients. Infection spread very quickly through hospital populations, causing a lot of preventable death and misery. Should we cease the use of soap and hand washing because "it isn't natural". Nobody is born with braces on their teeth, either, but my granddaughter has a small mouth and would end up with teeth coming in sideways if spacing isn't corrected now. In an all natural world, she would be stuck with too many teeth and not enough mouth, and I'm sure that wouldn't enhance her life.

My point is this. Maybe humans were born with such big brains so that we could think and invent solutions to our problems. For me, oily hair is a problem, and I'm glad for the shampoo; I'm glad for the hand washing; I'm glad for the braces; I'm glad for many other inventions that give me a lifespan longer than 30 years.

Totally agree. The soap thing is especially relevant since almost none of us live in "natural" conditions. Many people will site that early tribal people were actually fairly long-lived compared to early agriculturists. That's true.

There were also only a few hundred thousand people on earth, in small groups of 30, spread out by roughly the distance of a very long American commute. Epidemics were impossible. It just killed off the entire tribe and stopped there, since it had nowhere to jump to.

And they still didn't live as long as we do now.

And then we factor in polluton, completely different bacterial flora and physiology, etc, etc, etc...

The "natural" movement has gotten pretty carried away.

But I think it's handy for presenting options and making you realize the mainstream way of doing it is not the only way.

For example, learning some of the chemistry around cleansers, in order to asses the claims of the mainstream versus the "naturalists" is what led me to realizing why I was suddenly having severe adult acne out of nowhere in my 20's.

Now I don't use any form of anionic on my head, and no cleanser of any kind on my face (warm water + gentle scrubbing). My particular form of oily skin, for whatever reason, is reactive to those things... exclusively from the neck up, for whatever reason.

That fixed my acne completely in under a month after 3 years of suffering with it. My skin is lovely these days. And, surprisingly, less oily than when I was soaping it.

I soap the rest of my body, and I'm CO living in a hard water area where I occasionally have to clarify every couple months, so I'm obviously not afraid of cleansers or sudding things.

But taking the time to do the research behind the debate made me realize we can tailor our self-care to our own needs. Mainstream commercialism is always trying to convince you that you need some new product which you often don't, and for some individuals may cause problems, while naturalism is trying to convince you that somehow nothing has changed since a million years ago.

Actually assessing the information makes you realize you have options.

As usual, black and white thinking isn't where the truth will be found.

[Chromis]

I don't get how some people are taking this all all or nothing. I prefer "natural" hair and skin products, but am vaccinated and quite happy with plenty of modern technology. Yes, there are people that get evangelical about it, but that is not most people by any means.

My garden is also "natural". It does not make sense to me as a home gardener to spray or use commercial fertilizers. (I don't buy organic boxed fertilizer either for that matter.) I find that if my soil is healthy, I do not need to spray or resort to what I might term as steroids for plants. This works better for me and is cheaper. Same with my haircare. It might not work for everyone, but this is what I choose. Shampoo bars work well for me, a lot better than either the hippie shampoos *or* the regular drugstore ones. They also travel well and last longer. I mean, yes, I am a hippie, but I also find this to be a better alternative!

I find artificial fragrances too cloying and they make me sneeze. I would not say I am allergic, I just don't like them. Same for cigarette smoke. I don't like it. I also don't like the smell of most commercial shampoos, even many of the hippie ones were super strong. Eww! Some people love highly scented products, I am just not one of them.

Lots of things labelled natural are not. Like natural flavouring. Nope! Or people assume Lush is natural. Still nope! (Also again with the ew, why so smelly?)

[SparrowWings]

For example, learning some of the chemistry around cleansers, in order to asses the claims of the mainstream versus the "naturalists" is what led me to realizing why I was suddenly having severe adult acne out of nowhere in my 20's.

Now I don't use any form of anionic on my head, and no cleanser of any kind on my face (warm water + gentle scrubbing). My particular form of oily skin, for whatever reason, is reactive to those things... exclusively from the neck up, for whatever reason.

That fixed my acne completely in under a month after 3 years of suffering with it. My skin is lovely these days. And, surprisingly, less oily than when I was soaping it.
Do you have links to any of what you found? What falls into the anionic category?

From your description, I'm in a similar boat, aside from the lucky accident/laziness of very rarely having used soap on my face in my life. I did periodically through puberty, but was never convinced it made any significant difference. More recently, though, the difference it has made is to make my face noticeably oily within hours, as compared to water and towel scrubbing making it very faintly oily after a couple days, and that can be wiped off with nothing more than my bare, dry hand and then my face is good for at least another couple days. If I soap it, though, it gets oily, and then even after wiping that off, it starts thinking about breaking out a couple days after that, no matter what I do to try and prevent it. It rarely does so in any serious fashion, but it's still a definite difference. I always assumed it was comparable to stretching washes for hair to teach the scalp to produce less oil, but I've sure had some funny and disgusted reactions from the few people who have found out over the years. Including my BF, who ironically loves to comment-complain about the "red dots" on my face on the rare occasions they show up, yet can't possibly consider no soap to be sanitary if it comes up as a discussion (so it doesn't anymore!).

[Robot Ninja]

I find artificial fragrances too cloying and they make me sneeze. I would not say I am allergic, I just don't like them. Same for cigarette smoke. I don't like it. I also don't like the smell of most commercial shampoos, even many of the hippie ones were super strong. Eww! Some people love highly scented products, I am just not one of them.


I don't get it either. They all smell like flowers or baby powder or fake fruit, and do manufacturers not realize that people tend to use more than one toiletry item at once? And they all have different scents, because finding something unscented is expensive and you'd be buying it only for the fact that it's unscented, not for how well it works, so you end up smelling like flowers and baby powder and fake fruit at the same time. Perfume is for making you smell. Shampoo, soap, deodorant are for making you NOT smell.

[neko_kawaii]

Ugh, fragrances. Cue the sinus headache and find the inhaler. Thankfully when its on other people my eyes just water and I can usually escape. I know people who aren't so lucky.

My husband and I were visiting some historical site or some such and there was a sign warning tourists about bees in the area. We didn't see many but got talking to the docent about them somehow and the docent commented that she'd noticed that women had more issues with the bees than men and later my husband and I wondered if it had to do with the fragrances in EVERYTHING that women use.

*shakes fist at manufacturers. Knock it off!

[Qz]

Yes to fragrance issues... I'm not sensitive to them or allergic, but do wear essential oils and I don't like competing scents, so everything I use is as non-fragrant as I can get... except my shampoo I suppose now that I think about it. My hand and bath soap is unscented as are all of the other things I put on me. Funny, I never thought about shampoo scent as being a negative, but then again my hair doesn't seem to hold that scent long either.

[Hypnotica]

I think that one of the reasons that more people in this day and age go down the non-vax route, is that not many of the adults living in the western world today have seen with their own eyes what some of the diseases can do.

I have done some genealogy. Mainly, I was tracking my paternal grandfather's mother after whom I'm named after. She died in 1950 and was born in late 1800 (I can't remember the exact year right now). She birthed 14 children in total. One girl didn't survive many months but it was quite common to loose at least one child early.

But in 1921, her 3 oldest sons (between 15 and 10 years old) all succumbed in the month of November to the same disease. The cause of death is listed as typhoid fever (as I gather that could be a whole slew of different diseases really). Maybe what they had, is something we vax against today.....I do wonder how she got through that pain and sorrow.

[Anya15]

For us we don't even have an option. There are way too many diseases here, it makes vaccination a necessity.

[Hypnotica]

I'm resonable oily and also very clog prone on my face and I always wear sunscreen. Soap or sudsy detergents makes my face very dry, very oily and I get breakouts. These days I only use a cleansing balm (if not very very dirty) and wipe it off with a soft damp cotton cloth. Works wonders!

[Platzhalter]

I don't get how some people are taking this all all or nothing. I prefer "natural" hair and skin products, but am vaccinated and quite happy with plenty of modern technology. Yes, there are people that get evangelical about it, but that is not most people by any means.
)

Seriously, this is the thing I was wondering about all the time as well. Do people really think there's only one or the other with nothing inbetween?

Most natural/organic (depending on where you live, there may actually be official regulations on what can be called organic or not, so it's not generally without a meaning everywhere) hair care products didn't work for me. But if something natural/homemade/organic works for me, is affordable and easily available... why not use it?

[lapushka]

My garden is also "natural". It does not make sense to me as a home gardener to spray or use commercial fertilizers. (I don't buy organic boxed fertilizer either for that matter.) I find that if my soil is healthy, I do not need to spray or resort to what I might term as steroids for plants. This works better for me and is cheaper. Same with my haircare. It might not work for everyone, but this is what I choose. Shampoo bars work well for me, a lot better than either the hippie shampoos *or* the regular drugstore ones. They also travel well and last longer. I mean, yes, I am a hippie, but I also find this to be a better alternative!

My mom is the same with her garden. She doesn't fertilize or spray, but then we don't have veggies. It's just a plant and flower garden. Still she planted lavender next to the roses for insect pests etc... things like that to help it along. She hates spraying her roses and prefers this (and it works).

[lapushka]

I think that one of the reasons that more people in this day and age go down the non-vax route, is that not many of the adults living in the western world today have seen with their own eyes what some of the diseases can do.

This. We have a few older people in this country (a well known one even, though I can't remember her name ATM) who actually had polio (and got disabilities from it). So yeah. I don't get how anyone would risk not getting at least that one! Measles wasn't any vaccine when I was growing up. Wait maybe it was being produced at that time. I remember our doctor at the time warning against a newer type of vaccine that wasn't "on point" yet. Better to get sick, he said. I don't remember what disease it was, though. If I had kids, I would absolutely vax them as best as possible. No question. But that's my choice.

[lilin]

Do you have links to any of what you found? What falls into the anionic category?

From your description, I'm in a similar boat, aside from the lucky accident/laziness of very rarely having used soap on my face in my life. I did periodically through puberty, but was never convinced it made any significant difference. More recently, though, the difference it has made is to make my face noticeably oily within hours, as compared to water and towel scrubbing making it very faintly oily after a couple days, and that can be wiped off with nothing more than my bare, dry hand and then my face is good for at least another couple days. If I soap it, though, it gets oily, and then even after wiping that off, it starts thinking about breaking out a couple days after that, no matter what I do to try and prevent it. It rarely does so in any serious fashion, but it's still a definite difference. I always assumed it was comparable to stretching washes for hair to teach the scalp to produce less oil, but I've sure had some funny and disgusted reactions from the few people who have found out over the years. Including my BF, who ironically loves to comment-complain about the "red dots" on my face on the rare occasions they show up, yet can't possibly consider no soap to be sanitary if it comes up as a discussion (so it doesn't anymore!).

It's dense, but this link explains it rather thoroughly and describes how a cleanser formulation can be made more gentle by adding other types of surfactants:

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/drp/2012/495917/

Basically, anionic surfactants have a greater ability to disrupt and denature proteins than other types do, because of their negative charge. Not all are especially harsh though. SLS is quite harsh of course, but SLES is actually pretty mild.

But, for whatever reason, both of these cause increasing oiliness and acne in me (though SLES does this MUCH less than SLS).

The harsher end of the anionic shampoos also cause rashes in me. Face cleansers with SLS don't for some reason -- just the acne/oiliness. I'm not sure what's different about anionic shampoo versus anionic face cleanser, but shampoo seems to be worse for my skin.

For my skin, I have found nonionic surfactants are the gentlest way to wash my hair. Unfortunately, they do not work well where I live: London, some of the hardest water imaginable. So now I'm CO (which contain cationic surfactants only), which is also pretty gentle.

As for why your face gets so oily after soap washing, it's basically a defence mechanism of the skin. Normal bar soap made with lye is also anionic in nature, and quite strong. If you have an oily skin type, your skin is most comfortable being slightly oily. When you wash with something extremely stripping, your skin goes into panic mode and tries to replenish its oils by pumping out more of them to compensate. So you wash more, and get oilier, wash more, get oilier, etc.

Weirdly enough, it seems like people with dry skin have the least problem with anionic surfactants in my own anecdotal experience. Not sure why -- perhaps because their skin doesn't "panic" quite as much from being dry, since that's its natural set point.

For me personally, my skin never "adjusted" to soap washing. It just got worse and worse.

I have found, at least with my own oily skin type, the best course of action is to just leave it alone. Make sure dead skin is gently removed (I also do the towel rub thing like you do -- it's gentler than a full exfoliation, but it's just enough to keep the surface fresh after your skin is softened by warm water), and that's it.

My skin stays at a nice level of "slightly oily" pretty much all the time now. Not so much that it feels or looks oily, but enough that it's quite soft.

Skin kept free of debris (too much dead skin) is perfectly sanitary. You're removing the stuff bacteria feeds off of, when you give yourself a scrub. That's what the dead surface layer is there for: to protect the live layers beneath from infection. So if you're making sure it's getting "shedded" (scrubbed away), you're maintaining sanitation. If it gets actually dirty, maybe wash it with something a bit stronger, but we in the developed world rarely roll around in the dirt all day, outside of certain professions and young kids. And obviously, do spot-treat any wounds you have on your face.

I still use soap on other parts of my body, especially those that emit pheromones (these are much more strongly attractant of bacteria than normal sweat, and usually less well-ventilated, also leading to more bacteria growth). But my face just wants to be left alone, and I've certainly never had anyone think my face looks "dirty." I get asked what I do to make it look so nice, actually. Most people are surprised by my answer.

[Wildcat Diva]

I absolutely agree with Hypnotica and understand Lapushka. But I also factor in modern treatments and diseases changing to become more mild or more severe. It does need to be watched, absolutely.

Regarding polio. When my oldest son was born, I went into his first shot visit (he did have a few, my oldest, before I stopped) ready to argue against the oral polio dose. I think I remember that eight kids a year in America were getting it from the oral vaccine, while zero kids in America were getting it wild. So I could put his hand in the lotto ticket box that had eight "winning/losing" tickets or zero tickets. Luckily, the month before, the AAP had stopped recommending the oral dose (but it's still used around the world in places because it's cheap).

That experience taught me that wow, this is cutting it really close, what "science" knows and makes sense of. I'd better try to pay attention. Which is not that easy for the layperson, even an educated one.

[lillielil]

I absolutely agree with Hypnotica and understand Lapushka. But I also factor in modern treatments and diseases changing to become more mild or more severe. It does need to be watched, absolutely.

Regarding polio. When my oldest son was born, I went into his first shot visit (he did have a few, my oldest, before I stopped) ready to argue against the oral polio dose. I think I remember that eight kids a year in America were getting it from the oral vaccine, while zero kids in America were getting it wild. So I could put his hand in the lotto ticket box that had eight "winning/losing" tickets or zero tickets. Luckily, the month before, the AAP had stopped recommending the oral dose (but it's still used around the world in places because it's cheap).

That experience taught me that wow, this is cutting it really close, what "science" knows and makes sense of. I'd better try to pay attention. Which is not that easy for the layperson, even an educated one.

I am staunchly pro-vaccine, but this one of the very few arguments against - or, more accurately, for additional attention - that has actually made sense to me. Thank you, WCD, for always contributing in a helpful and friendly tone. We may not agree on everything, but I really admire you.

[OleanderTime]

This reminds me of when people point out that something has a CHEMICAL in it. Like, everything is a F'n chemical, people. What is a "chemical"???

[butter52]

Interesting comment butter. I would assume also that it depends not only on the community but the disease involved as well.

At first I thought you were talking about something different. I had already looked up some like characteristics of people who don't vaccinate in America, if you believe CNN: Non-Hispanic white, married couples in English speaking households, educated, with college degrees, covered by private insurance, and a greater than average income. I was interested to see that I hit every mark. Hmmmm.

Well that sounds like a very big sample though, I dont know if it is really significant? In I mean dont feel stereotyped by that.

I think the geographic/racial issue is signifficant. Its interesting that the anti-vaxx movement is a white american thing and not a generalised first world country thing.
You guys are just nuts :P

[Sarahlabyrinth]

Well that sounds like a very big sample though, I dont know if it is really significant? In I mean dont feel stereotyped by that.

I think the geographic/racial issue is signifficant. Its interesting that the anti-vaxx movement is a white american thing and not a generalised first world country thing.
You guys are just nuts :P

Oh we have anti-vaxxers here, too. I'm pretty sure many first world countries have them. I am firmly in the vaccination camp. I have had some of these diseases myself, and a school friend of mine had polio.

[butter52]

This reminds me of when people point out that something has a CHEMICAL in it. Like, everything is a F'n chemical, people. What is a "chemical"???

Or when " things you cannot pronounce" are considered bad chemicals...

[butter52]

Oh we have anti-vaxxers here, too. I'm pretty sure many first world countries have them. I am firmly in the vaccination camp. I have had some of these diseases myself, and a school friend of mine had polio.

Huh interesting. Where I am from they are some, imported from the american movement. But highly marginal.

[Robot Ninja]

Regarding polio. When my oldest son was born, I went into his first shot visit (he did have a few, my oldest, before I stopped) ready to argue against the oral polio dose. I think I remember that eight kids a year in America were getting it from the oral vaccine, while zero kids in America were getting it wild. So I could put his hand in the lotto ticket box that had eight "winning/losing" tickets or zero tickets. Luckily, the month before, the AAP had stopped recommending the oral dose (but it's still used around the world in places because it's cheap).


That is nuts, and there is no excuse for putting kids at risk just to save a few bucks when a safer alternative is available and you can afford it. The oral polio vaccine was never presented as an option for my kid; I guess they don't use it in Canada.



I think the geographic/racial issue is signifficant. Its interesting that the anti-vaxx movement is a white american thing and not a generalised first world country thing.
You guys are just nuts :P

I think it might be because American culture places so much value on individual freedoms and looking after your own rather than the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. See also: gun-toting.

[Hairkay]

This reminds me of when people point out that something has a CHEMICAL in it. Like, everything is a F'n chemical, people. What is a "chemical"???
I've had someone try to sell me some "natural" creams and cosmetics using that rediculous argument that it hasn't got chemicals in it. I gave a vague smile and went on my way. There was no way I was going to buy what I know I'm allergic to.

Well that sounds like a very big sample though, I dont know if it is really significant? In I mean dont feel stereotyped by that.

I think the geographic/racial issue is signifficant. Its interesting that the anti-vaxx movement is a white american thing and not a generalised first world country thing.
You guys are just nuts :P
There are anti-vaxers in the UK and other parts of Europe too. A couple of years ago it became newsworthy when they had a measles outbreak in Wales and a person in their early 20s died of it. Those who caught it were the same age all had been from a generation when anti-vaxing became popular. That let to the uptake of those wanting their children vaccinated increasing.

I'm vaccinated for almost all things except the flu. Even though I get reminders annually because I do have mild asthma I don't take it up. There's no guarantee that I won't get flu because they take a gamble on what strain would most likely be rampant and make a vaccine from that. It'll only protect against that particular strain. Flu also has never been an annual illness for me so there's not much point getting a shot for it. When I was a child before I had all my vaccinations I got whooping cough. I think most vaccinations were separate then. My baby cousin hadn't had the vaccinations as yet and got whooping cough. I liked keeping her company so I caught it from her.

I have met onepractising anti-vaxer. I didn't agree with how she dealt with her children getting measles. They were home schooled like my nephew. Every year a home schooler association would arrange camping holidays for home schoolers. She took her children with measles at the infection stage to a holiday camp full of children. She should have stayed home with them until they were better. She had no way of knowing if anyone with a compromised immune system was going to be at the camp or if anyone else who caught measles from her children might have complications. Then again this is a woman who put her child's used potty on the picnic tables that others had to eat off of. She has no regard for anyone.

I know of another who doesn't agree with vaccination and has said that when he as children he most likely won't vaccinate them. His mother had taken that approach with him and he's fine.

[henné]

I have met onepractising anti-vaxer. I didn't agree with how she dealt with her children getting measles. They were home schooled like my nephew. Every year a home schooler association would arrange camping holidays for home schoolers. She took her children with measles at the infection stage to a holiday camp full of children. She should have stayed home with them until they were better. She had no way of knowing if anyone with a compromised immune system was going to be at the camp or if anyone else who caught measles from her children might have complications. Then again this is a woman who put her child's used potty on the picnic tables that others had to eat off of. She has no regard for anyone.


OMG, that is horrible! What a despicable woman! Wow ...

[alexis917]

OMG, that is horrible! What a despicable woman! Wow ...

If she had gotten other children sick because of her decision, is there some way she could be held liable?
And I'm not just talking about the measles, that potty thing is a nice way to transmit e.coli, right? Ugh....ew.

[butter52]

Yes I have seen cases on the news. A spanish kid died some months ago. But I have always found it something highly marginal in Europe and associated with america. Same as gun toting, or people who dont believe in evolution.

Home schooling is another thing I find super bizarre. But i will ask in off topic better.

[Wildcat Diva]

Thank you for your kind words, lillielil.

[rhosyn_du]

Sorry Im continuing the vax issue but I found this reaction/illness question very interesting. I think it does pose the question of if the anti vaxxer movement comes from a position of Priviledge.
As in only communities where the collective inmunity is sufficient to reduce the risk of illness enough anti vaxxing movements can be significant (i.e., other people in your community put their kids at risk of reaction so that you have the priviledge of making that choice). On the other hand, the experience of communities wich face life threatening diseases or individuals which are inmunodepressed or cant be vaccinated because of their condition or negative reaction is very different and they are can be put at risk by the decision of those priviledged ones.

Another thing that's interesting is that some areas are seeing a resurgence in diseases that were previously really uncommon due to the increasing popularity of refusing vaccines. In my area, it's whooping cough that's made a reappearance, which is particularly scary to me since I'm currently trying to get pregnant (babies can't be vaccinated against pertussis until 18 months, and the disease is much more likely to be fatal in the very young), and I have very vivid memories of my Nana talking about watching her baby cousin die of whooping cough. And I'm not in a position where I can just move somewhere else with a better vaccinated population.


I don't get how some people are taking this all all or nothing. I prefer "natural" hair and skin products, but am vaccinated and quite happy with plenty of modern technology. Yes, there are people that get evangelical about it, but that is not most people by any means.

Agreed. There are a lot of "natural" things I like (hair care, whole grains), but there are also some I'm really not in favor of (pertussis, arsenic) and some "unnatural" things I really like (sports bras, the internet). Neither technology or naturalness is an all-or-nothing proposition, and to me it makes the most sense to use a combination of both depending on what suits a particular person or situation.


This reminds me of when people point out that something has a CHEMICAL in it. Like, everything is a F'n chemical, people. What is a "chemical"???

This aggravates me so much. Chemicals are not inherently dangerous. Water is a chemical. People are made out of chemicals. Plants are made out of chemicals. Every physical substance in the entire universe is made of chemicals!

I will say, though, that use of "chemicals" as a shorthand for "dangerous substances" (along with the generic use of "toxins") is a really good indicator that whoever is talking/writing is not a reliable source for information.

[Hairkay]

This reminds me of when people point out that something has a CHEMICAL in it. Like, everything is a F'n chemical, people. What is a "chemical"???


OMG, that is horrible! What a despicable woman! Wow ...
I know. My mother had words with her about the potty incident before her measles holiday. The woman accused my mother about being fussy. Mother is a nurse by the way.

If she had gotten other children sick because of her decision, is there some way she could be held liable?
And I'm not just talking about the measles, that potty thing is a nice way to transmit e.coli, right? Ugh....ew.
No she couldn't be held liable if the worse were to occur.

I know I personally do think twice about these things even if the risk for getting something is low because personal experience taught me that I might just be that minority who gets the short straw.

[spidermom]

I remember once seeing a post with a long list of chemicals I can't pronounce. At the bottom was a picture of an orange with the words "this is the chemical composition of an organic orange."

[Robi-Bird]

I remember once seeing a post with a long list of chemicals I can't pronounce. At the bottom was a picture of an orange with the words "this is the chemical composition of an organic orange."

I worked with a girl that had that sort of frame of mind: if I can't pronounce it, it's bad, evil or whatever. I was a jerk and asked her: what about ricinus communis seed oil and she went on about how ricin is deadly and I piped up that ricinus communis seed oil is castor oil, one of the oils she liked for her oil cleansing. I got a dirty look.

There's nothing wrong with wanting fewer synthetics but it is misguided to assume that something being synthetic makes it evil or something being natural makes it superior. I cringe when I read diy lotion recipes online. Preservatives may be synthetic but staph is natural and I would much rather have 1% of some preservative in a formula that potentially deadly bacteria.

[allycat]

Another thing that's interesting is that some areas are seeing a resurgence in diseases that were previously really uncommon due to the increasing popularity of refusing vaccines. In my area, it's whooping cough that's made a reappearance, which is particularly scary to me since I'm currently trying to get pregnant (babies can't be vaccinated against pertussis until 18 months, and the disease is much more likely to be fatal in the very young), and I have very vivid memories of my Nana talking about watching her baby cousin die of whooping cough. And I'm not in a position where I can just move somewhere else with a better vaccinated population.

Just so you know, the spread of pertussis may be more likely caused by people who have not received booster shots. The new pertussis vaccine does not confer lifelong immunity. In fact, it has a very short protective period, perhaps only about 3 years.

"...the researchers estimated that the Tdap vaccine was about 69 percent effective in the first year after it was given. After that, immunity faded fast -- so that by year three, little protection remained, the study authors said….The bottom line, according to Klein, is that the current vaccines are not enough to prevent epidemics….I think waning immunity -- primarily from the DTaP but also Tdap -- are the main drivers of these outbreaks," Klein said."


https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_157114.html

[AZDesertRose]

I remember once seeing a post with a long list of chemicals I can't pronounce. At the bottom was a picture of an orange with the words "this is the chemical composition of an organic orange."

I've seen something similar using an organic banana.

I've also seen a meme about taking all the dihydrogen monoxide out of everything containing it. (Dihydrogen monoxide is one of the possible chemistry ways to say "water.")

There's watching for harmful things (and there are plenty of harmful things out there, and some things that are okay for some people are harmful for others; for example, I love lavender essential oil in a nice warm bath, but I have a friend who is violently allergic to lavender), and then there's being a bit ridiculous, as "If I can't pronounce it, I'm not using it." If you've ever studied chemistry at all, you know that you can render almost anything "unpronounceable."

[rhosyn_du]

Just so you know, the spread of pertussis may be more likely caused by people who have not received booster shots. The new pertussis vaccine does not confer lifelong immunity. In fact, it has a very short protective period, perhaps only about 3 years.

"...the researchers estimated that the Tdap vaccine was about 69 percent effective in the first year after it was given. After that, immunity faded fast -- so that by year three, little protection remained, the study authors said….The bottom line, according to Klein, is that the current vaccines are not enough to prevent epidemics….I think waning immunity -- primarily from the DTaP but also Tdap -- are the main drivers of these outbreaks," Klein said."


https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_157114.html

Thank you. Not any less scary, but good to know.

[spidermom]

Similar to my daughter, AZDesertRose. She's much better off using something like amodimethicone than coconut oil because she's allergic to all things coconut, also palm oil, as is one of my grandsons. The other grandson is allergic to so many things I can barely keep up.

[AZDesertRose]

Similar to my daughter, AZDesertRose. She's much better off using something like amodimethicone than coconut oil because she's allergic to all things coconut, also palm oil, as is one of my grandsons. The other grandson is allergic to so many things I can barely keep up.

Exactly. You have to figure out what works for you (and your children if you have dependent children), and it basically comes down to being an informed consumer with sometimes a healthy dose of trial and error.

[Robi-Bird]

Thank you. Not any less scary, but good to know.

Yep, this is how I contracted it. It was not common knowledge at the time, 15 yrs ago, that the whooping cough vaccine wears off around age 12. Unfortunately it never occurred to my mom that my persistent cough was something other than a cold until she heard the whoop. I had gone through the entire contagious period attending school, going to my clubs, and at least five families I associated with had infections from exposure to me. There is a medication they prescribe that stops you from being contagious after one week of treatment and it lessons the duration of the illness. Because I had already been sick for so long, around a month, the med didn't help and I had that whoop for six months, lost a ton of weight because the whoop will actually make you vomit.

I really really want parents of young kids or who are going to be around young kids that whooping cough is horrible for a healthy teen and just think of how bad it is for a baby.

[spirals]

I worked with a girl that had that sort of frame of mind: if I can't pronounce it, it's bad, evil or whatever. I was a jerk and asked her: what about ricinus communis seed oil and she went on about how ricin is deadly and I piped up that ricinus communis seed oil is castor oil, one of the oils she liked for her oil cleansing. I got a dirty look.

There's nothing wrong with wanting fewer synthetics but it is misguided to assume that something being synthetic makes it evil or something being natural makes it superior. I cringe when I read diy lotion recipes online. Preservatives may be synthetic but staph is natural and I would much rather have 1% of some preservative in a formula that potentially deadly bacteria.

This, so much this. I uses to be like your coworker, but I've gained some common sense now. I do use natural herbs and oils for some things because they work well for me. And I use some conventional products because they work. Fortunately I'm not allergic to any of them.

[henné]

My guide to what product to use/not to use:

1. Was this product created using organically grown, dangerous-pesticide-free practices?
2. Was this product produced using child labor?
3. Who produced this product?
4. What environmental impact has the production of this product?

Why do I even care? I care mainly because of the environment. I care because of my children's future ... and of course, I'm not totally selfless and will also put only wholesome things on and in my body.

Lots of synthetic products are ok, but their production tends to impact the environment very negatively. Where would you rather live? Next to an olive orchard or a chemical plant?

No, I don't live in a la la land and I know lots of absolutely vital things and products are created in a chemical plant these days - including plastic that we have lost the ability to live without, but that doesn't mean we should not strive to minimise the necessity of plastic, petrochemical byproducts, etc. We now KNOW that there are dangerous chemicals in plastic (BPA, anyone?), we also know we are destroying the environment by overproduction/overconsumption. That's why I'd rather use something 'produced' by a tree, rather than something created in a chemical lab - whether or not what was created in the chemical lab is bad/worse/better/whatever for its end result.

Anywho, carry on.

[morrigan*]

I'm not looking if it's pesticide free, but i do care that is palm oil free, and i check this on food to, i have a big container of peanut butter that isn't palm oil free, but i won't toss it because of that.
I'm also trying to minimize waste, especially food waste.

[pailin]

That is nuts, and there is no excuse for putting kids at risk just to save a few bucks when a safer alternative is available and you can afford it. The oral polio vaccine was never presented as an option for my kid; I guess they don't use it in Canada.

I seem to remember that the oral polio shot, the one that is attenuated rather than killed virus, used to be preferred for areas that still had frequently occurring polio because the actual protection was better- some difference on intestinal immunity. There is a trade-off to most of these things, risk-benefit. It depends upon how high the child's risk for polio in the area is.

Regarding whooping cough, my niece had it a few years ago, and one of the difficulties with diseases for which we routinely vaccinate (and which were once common but are no longer common) is that doctors don't see so many cases. So they may not diagnose it as easily when they finally see it, and they are lower on the list of diseases the doctor considers when they see a patient. My sister couldn't get a diagnosis for my niece (who didn't start whooping on demand in the doctor's office) until she videotaped her coughing one day and sent that to the pediatrician.

[lapushka]

My guide to what product to use/not to use:

1. Was this product created using organically grown, dangerous-pesticide-free practices?
2. Was this product produced using child labor?
3. Who produced this product?
4. What environmental impact has the production of this product?

Why do I even care? I care mainly because of the environment. I care because of my children's future ... and of course, I'm not totally selfless and will also put only wholesome things on and in my body.

Lots of synthetic products are ok, but their production tends to impact the environment very negatively. Where would you rather live? Next to an olive orchard or a chemical plant?

No, I don't live in a la la land and I know lots of absolutely vital things and products are created in a chemical plant these days - including plastic that we have lost the ability to live without, but that doesn't mean we should not strive to minimise the necessity of plastic, petrochemical byproducts, etc. We now KNOW that there are dangerous chemicals in plastic (BPA, anyone?), we also know we are destroying the environment by overproduction/overconsumption. That's why I'd rather use something 'produced' by a tree, rather than something created in a chemical lab - whether or not what was created in the chemical lab is bad/worse/better/whatever for its end result.

Anywho, carry on.

I'm not too big on that myself, TBH. :)

My only 3 criteria are:

1/ easy to obtain?
2/ do I like it?
3/ does it have sulfates/silicones (because I need them)

... well, that's about it.

[Wildcat Diva]

I think this article explains the oral polio virus thing.
http://m.cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/8/1287.full

Lots of good info and food for thought coming through here guys.

[lapushka]

I'm not too big on that myself, TBH. :)

My only 3 criteria are:

1/ easy to obtain?
2/ do I like it?
3/ does it have sulfates/silicones (because I need them)

... well, that's about it.

Oh and 4/ PRICE! :lol:

[Hypnotica]

It is near impossible to buy "guilt free" all the time because how companies and ownership are structured. But at least try to choose some good products, like organic and fairtrade coffee. Or whatever products.

For example: I like The Body Shop, they have a lot of great products and they are big on organics and no animal testing. But - they are owned by Loreal who do test on animals. A lot of companies that usually don't do animal testing choose to do so because otherwise they are not allowed to sell in China in brick-and-mortar stores.

It is messy and complicated. But try to do something to buy products that don't have lead to suffering.

[lapushka]

It is near impossible to buy "guilt free" all the time because how companies and ownership are structured. But at least try to choose some good products, like organic and fairtrade coffee. Or whatever products.

For example: I like The Body Shop, they have a lot of great products and they are big on organics and no animal testing. But - they are owned by Loreal who do test on animals. A lot of companies that usually don't do animal testing choose to do so because otherwise they are not allowed to sell in China in brick-and-mortar stores.

It is messy and complicated. But try to do something to buy products that don't have lead to suffering.

I have coffee that is from a local supermarket's (Colruyt) own brand and sourcing abroad. They pay good wages to create that coffee. It is more expensive than the coffee at Aldi (but that one unfortunately gives me stomach issues). This coffee doesn't. So... yeah, it's about the only "expensive" thing I get. My mom & dad go get it for me (about 36 500gram cans at once) and I don't need to buy coffee for months. That way they only need to go 2 or 3 times, as this supermarket isn't the easiest to drive to (busy road).

[renia22]

It's interesting looking at the tone on this forum regarding overall philosophy. Before I joined, I lurked extensively using a site-specific Google search, and most of the stuff that came up was from 2009-2012 rather than more recent. Based on my observations from that time and now, there's been a big shift. Formerly, there was more condemnation of certain typical behaviors, like "blowfrying" (haven't seen that term around for a while), and a heavier emphasis on using less; I felt more of a tone of "just wait, my way will work out for you eventually." Commercial products seemed less popular, dyeing was a huge no-no, and BBBs were much more in vogue. I see a lot more of a YMMV attitude around here now. Both case were strictly Mane forum topics, not straying into conventional products or henna and natural products.


I've noticed this too. From what I remember, the height of it was around 2009 or so, around that time you couldn't admit to using a conventional product without getting shut down or told your hair would fall out or whatever. The past few years it seems to have calmed down some, or at least there's more of a balance now.

[lapushka]

I've noticed this too. From what I remember, the height of it was around 2009 or so, around that time you couldn't admit to using a conventional product without getting shut down or told your hair would fall out or whatever. The past few years it seems to have calmed down some, or at least there's more of a balance now.

I think this mentality has shifted for the better! YMMV is a very good thing!

[lillielil]

I'm not too big on that myself, TBH. :)

My only 3 criteria are:

1/ easy to obtain?
2/ do I like it?
3/ does it have sulfates/silicones (because I need them)

... well, that's about it.

Did you really just admit you don't give a fig about child labor? Ouch.

[Robot Ninja]

Did you really just admit you don't give a fig about child labor? Ouch.

It doesn't really matter if you give a fig about child labor if you can't afford to buy fair trade.

[lillielil]

It doesn't really matter if you give a fig about child labor if you can't afford to buy fair trade.

True; my privilege is showing.

[henné]

It doesn't really matter if you give a fig about child labor if you can't afford to buy fair trade.

Maybe you do (care), but I'm pretty sure there are many who actually couldn't give a flying ... bat ...

To be honest, even I can't always afford fair trade/organic, unfortunately.

But I do care and I try whenever I can.

[lapushka]

Child labor, for hair products? I mean, there aren't companies around, I don't think who get involved with that anymore. If so, name them. I'll gladly listen.

[lillielil]

Child labor, for hair products? I mean, there aren't companies around, I don't think who get involved with that anymore. If so, name them. I'll gladly listen.

I don't see where henné was referring specifically to only hair products, and there aren't going to be any major companies that step up and say "hey, check out our sweatshops!" Where it usually comes up is in component ingredients. For example, look for palm oil (http://www.schusterinstituteinvestigations.org/#!palm-oil-controversies-forced-labor-child-labor/c1xrj), and you will often find child labor. Unfortunately a "sustainable" certification means nothing about the labor employed in production. Here (http://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods/)is the US Department of Labor report. Of course just looking for "palm oil" would be too easy, so here's a list of alternate names (https://drpongo.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/productpalmoillist2012flexweek.pdf) that might be in ingredient lists.

[Wildcat Diva]

Did you really just admit you don't give a fig about child labor? Ouch.
I had to go back and re read henne's post that Lapushka had mentioned for a blip, and found that child labor was just a small part of henne's post (yes you have a lotta thoughts, henne, haha ;).

I thought the post she referenced was mainly about the chemical plant part, which I can't really relate to because hello the biggest chemical plant area in the Western Hemisphere is in my backyard and funds EVERYTHING around here (there are no olive groves here. :D)

It's not like Lapushka came out and specifically said she doesn't care about that issue.

Honestly, I don't think about and research everything I buy either. I don't have time. Where do my cotton balls really come from? I got no clue. Well reading the label tells me that Target gives back 5% to communities, and that my cotton balls are made in the U.S.A., so I am betting they are all right. But I don't think I am gonna do that with every product.

[lillielil]

I had to go back and re read henne's post that Lapushka had mentioned for a blip, and found that child labor was just a small part of henne's post (yes you have a lotta thoughts, henne, haha ;).

I thought the post she referenced was mainly about the chemical plant part, which I can't really relate to because hello the biggest chemical plant area in the Western Hemisphere is in my backyard and funds EVERYTHING around here (there are no olive groves here. :D)

It's not like Lapushka came out and specifically said she doesn't care about that issue.

Honestly, I don't think about and research everything I buy either. I don't have time. Where do my cotton balls really come from? I got no clue. Well reading the label tells me that Target gives back 5% to communities, and that my cotton balls are made in the U.S.A., so I am betting they are all right. But I don't think I am gonna do that with every product.

I willingly admit that I had a knee-jerk reaction. I read henné's list:

My guide to what product to use/not to use:

1. Was this product created using organically grown, dangerous-pesticide-free practices?
2. Was this product produced using child labor?
3. Who produced this product?
4. What environmental impact has the production of this product?

Immediately followed by lapushka's comment:

I'm not too big on that myself, TBH.

My only 3 criteria are:

1/ easy to obtain?
2/ do I like it?
3/ does it have sulfates/silicones (because I need them)

... well, that's about it.

And I took "that" to refer to henne's list of questions about the products she uses. I was just shocked that someone would basically say she didn't care about child labor at all. I completely understand prioritizing lapushka's list over henné's (and usually do so myself, except for the sulfates/silicones because they don't seem to make a big difference for me), but would never say "I don't care about the labor practices of the companies I buy from". That seems willfully ignorant and quite myopic to me. Even if I don't always make the best purchasing choices, I try to educate myself as a consumer. Google is such a great tool, and all it takes is thinking to ask the question.

Now your cotton balls... it would depend on where the ingredients are sourced. Of course if you keep digging with just about anything you are going to find something ugly at some point in the production process. There's no such thing as a perfect product.

[Robot Ninja]

Honestly, I don't think about and research everything I buy either. I don't have time. Where do my cotton balls really come from? I got no clue. Well reading the label tells me that Target gives back 5% to communities, and that my cotton balls are made in the U.S.A., so I am betting they are all right. But I don't think I am gonna do that with every product.

Are they organic cotton balls? Because cotton farming uses a lot of pesticides.

Ultimately though, even if you were buying organic cotton balls, there are a hundred other people who can't afford to buy organic cotton balls. It's nice to be an ethical consumer, but unless industries change the way they do things, it doesn't have much of an overall impact.

[Wildcat Diva]

Understandable lil.

no they are not organic cotton balls.

Being a consumer is such a big responsibility. If I am not careful I will start to feel pressure when I go to the store. That's when it's easy to flip to "aw hell whatever/ I don't care" mode.

For a detail focused person my brain will explode or at least start smoking.

[butter52]

Ugh yeah, there is no absolute way of doing all right. You try to go organic and you are broke and supporting unsustainable economies, you move to non organic and you might be supporting animal violence, you move into vegan and your sinthethic clothes are damaging the water repositories, and the circle of guilt starts again.

[Robi-Bird]

This, so much this. I uses to be like your coworker, but I've gained some common sense now. I do use natural herbs and oils for some things because they work well for me. And I use some conventional products because they work. Fortunately I'm not allergic to any of them.

I use a mix of conventional products and natural oils, etc as well. I am sensitive to some fragrances but seems to be more the level of scenting or the presence of bergamot. I've got more restriction on natural stuff than I do on synthetics, hemp and soy as other examples. My big deal when picking a product is knowing what the ingredients are and what they do. If I don't know the answer, I'll find out. I do think knowing your ingredients is a good start to making the right choices for yourself.

I also avoid nut oils, including the exotics because my brother in law has allergies and I prefer to play it safe (he had a severe reaction to cashews). For that matter I also avoid palm because I find it unethical, and sandalwood and rosewood. If a plant is extinct in the wild, I'm not touching it, if habit is being obliterated to grow it, I also don't want to touch it.

[Hairkay]

Yep, this is how I contracted it. It was not common knowledge at the time, 15 yrs ago, that the whooping cough vaccine wears off around age 12. Unfortunately it never occurred to my mom that my persistent cough was something other than a cold until she heard the whoop. I had gone through the entire contagious period attending school, going to my clubs, and at least five families I associated with had infections from exposure to me. There is a medication they prescribe that stops you from being contagious after one week of treatment and it lessons the duration of the illness. Because I had already been sick for so long, around a month, the med didn't help and I had that whoop for six months, lost a ton of weight because the whoop will actually make you vomit.

I really really want parents of young kids or who are going to be around young kids that whooping cough is horrible for a healthy teen and just think of how bad it is for a baby.

That's how I got it too. My baby cousin who I contracted it from was 6 months old so hadn't had all of her vaccinations as yet. I was 7 at the time.

[Sarahlabyrinth]

I found this today:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11617867

[RavennaNight]

If she had gotten other children sick because of her decision, is there some way she could be held liable?
And I'm not just talking about the measles, that potty thing is a nice way to transmit e.coli, right? Ugh....ew.

^^This. This thought process right here explains so so much. In a good way. :)

Is it causing harm? This has been asked in so many different ways in this thread. It is when something is perceived to cause harm (sometimes more than it does) and it harms not only the person doing the harm but others, and we moralize and judge others for their choices when problems arise. Should we judge the lady mentioned here with the potty and the measle-spreading children? ABSOLUTELY. She has come to the table with a festering chamber pot of privilege, completely unaware of how rank it stinks.


But then this is also applied to areas more gray. Is my using silicones affecting your quality of life? Someone, extremely environmentally conscious, may just come and shake their finger at me judgingly and barrage me with articles about how I am single-handedly destroying the planet. Is another person's continued rants about "not using chemicals," while not realizing that everything natural and synthetic is a chemical causing harm? In this grey area of discussion is where we consider HARM, and where we perceive harm is where we judge. This is where the thought process "you weren't born with a shampoo bottle in your hand," comes from. Whoever said it clearly came to the opinion that man-made products somehow cause HARM, *and the use of them by others* somehow is harming their own well-being. It's the same argument made by anti-abortionists, that supporting others' decision to have abortions is a sin in and of itself because they are then complicit in that other person's inability to go to heaven. It is when others find that your personal decisions actually have some sort of moral consequence in their eyes that people become judgmental of your choices.

I gave a wide array of examples, neither support or endorse any of them, and have used them simply as examples.

[casiopeia]

I have read a large part of the NW SO thread out of sheer curiosity. I get it, soap is not natural. But I've seen members there stretching water only body or face washing. Why wouldn't you take a shower with water only? That's rather weird and irrational, as far as I can observe. To save water or what?
Personally I use a combination of products. Shampoo, conditioners, serums, leave in's but also unrefined coconut and walnut oil for my hair and castor oil for my lashes and apricot seed oil on my face. I just use what I find works best.

[RavennaNight]

I have read a large part of the NW SO thread out of sheer curiosity. I get it, soap is not natural. But I've seen members there stretching water only body or face washing. Why wouldn't you take a shower with water only? That's rather weird. To save water or what?


I've gleaned a great deal of knowledge from that thread, it helps me beat winter dryness to stretch out washes. I went NWSO for a solid 6 weeks, 2 winters ago. Although I wouldn't go that far with it again, that thread has helped me be able to stretch out washing to once a week. As far as stretching body and face washing, I could never, but YMMV. I wear makeup and wash my face 2x daily and shower daily. If I don't shower I feel very unclean.

[Wildcat Diva]

On the line of thought ^^^"to save water:" I think about the chlorine in the city water and steam and how maybe that is not a great thing for daily use to absorb and breathe. But I don't act on it, that's just my thought process to wonder.

[Olavi]

I have read a large part of the NW SO thread out of sheer curiosity. I get it, soap is not natural. But I've seen members there stretching water only body or face washing. Why wouldn't you take a shower with water only? That's rather weird and irrational, as far as I can observe. To save water or what?
Personally I use a combination of products. Shampoo, conditioners, serums, leave in's but also unrefined coconut and walnut oil for my hair and castor oil for my lashes and apricot seed oil on my face. I just use what I find works best.


I've gleaned a great deal of knowledge from that thread, it helps me beat winter dryness to stretch out washes. I went NWSO for a solid 6 weeks, 2 winters ago. Although I wouldn't go that far with it again, that thread has helped me be able to stretch out washing to once a week. As far as stretching body and face washing, I could never, but YMMV. I wear makeup and wash my face 2x daily and shower daily. If I don't shower I feel very unclean.

I have a skin condition that makes it extremely dry even in best days, and simple cold shower in winter, without any detergents or soaps, makes it sometimes so dry that no lotion or oil will make it better (this winter there was days where I could lotion my body many times a day, and it still was really dry). So the obvious solution was not to take even WO showers. Now that it's spring and dust fills the air I have to take WO showers daily, and once the summer and heat and sweat hit up, it the same deal, and my skin is so dry right now (also, no, coconut oil doesn't work for me, it starts to smell rancid right away even if I have bought the jar the very same day, and you know what people judging "natural people" would say about me then). I can't wait for fall to come.

The said skin condition is also why I don't give a rat's butt on how people think I should treat my hair and body. One has right to think I'm too gross, because I don't like to shower daily or prefer not to use soap or conditioners because they are unnecessary and harmful to me, but I have still all rights to treat my body as I see fit. Of course it hurts when people think I "take natural too far" and think I try to condemn them just because I tell what works for me, but giving in would only make my issues worse (I don't plan on getting Full body eczema #3 any time soon).

[lapushka]

I have a skin condition that makes it extremely dry even in best days, and simple cold shower in winter, without any detergents or soaps, makes it sometimes so dry that no lotion or oil will make it better (this winter there was days where I could lotion my body many times a day, and it still was really dry). So the obvious solution was not to take even WO showers. Now that it's spring and dust fills the air I have to take WO showers daily, and once the summer and heat and sweat hit up, it the same deal, and my skin is so dry right now (also, no, coconut oil doesn't work for me, it starts to smell rancid right away even if I have bought the jar the very same day, and you know what people judging "natural people" would say about me then). I can't wait for fall to come.

The said skin condition is also why I don't give a rat's butt on how people think I should treat my hair and body. One has right to think I'm too gross, because I don't like to shower daily or prefer not to use soap or conditioners because they are unnecessary and harmful to me, but I have still all rights to treat my body as I see fit. Of course it hurts when people think I "take natural too far" and think I try to condemn them just because I tell what works for me, but giving in would only make my issues worse (I don't plan on getting Full body eczema #3 any time soon).

What about just washing at the sink, with a washcloth, not the "flannels" (handtowels we call them) that you typically get, but the European washcloths (they are terrycloth mitts). My washing happens that way as well. It is better for the skin and you can skip your limbs if you want to (or do them every other day, or every 2 days). You get to pick and choose where the water goes, and it goes there in far less amounts!

[Olavi]

What about just washing at the sink, with a washcloth, not the "flannels" (handtowels we call them) that you typically get, but the European washcloths (they are terrycloth mitts). My washing happens that way as well. It is better for the skin and you can skip your limbs if you want to (or do them every other day, or every 2 days). You get to pick and choose where the water goes, and it goes there in far less amounts!

Believe me, after living with 25 years with this, I have tried. And it doesn't work for me well enough to do often. Usually, when I get dirty enough for it to bother me, it's so dirty it's just easier to take shower. I do sometimes wash my hair in sink (it hurts my back, tho), but washcloth baths for body never really did the thing for me. I could give it another try if my hair washing cycle was longer, but since it's currently just every other or every third day, I don't see the point.

[lapushka]

Believe me, after living with 25 years with this, I have tried. And it doesn't work for me well enough to do often. Usually, when I get dirty enough for it to bother me, it's so dirty it's just easier to take shower. I do sometimes wash my hair in sink (it hurts my back, tho), but washcloth baths for body never really did the thing for me. I could give it another try if my hair washing cycle was longer, but since it's currently just every other or every third day, I don't see the point.

Ah that's too bad. I wasn't sure you had gone that route or not. :)