Antiperspirant Archives

anti-perspirant - toxin blocker!!!

[ Antiperspirant Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!
 
        

anti-perspirant - toxin blocker!!!

Posted by vic on December 01, 1999 at 02:11:19:

I don't know if this has been addressed anywhere, but I just read something about anti-perspirant (and I'm not talking about the Alzheimer's threat). your armpits are one of the major areas of the body where your body releases toxins, and the use of anti-pers. blocks the release of these toxins, and can cause the severe release elsewhere, i.e., on your face! has anyone else heard this?



Re: anti-perspirant - toxin blocker!!!

Posted by
Zarin on December 01, 1999 at 05:09:24:

In Reply to: anti-perspirant - toxin blocker!!! posted by vic on December 01, 1999 at 02:11:19:

I don't know about that, but funnily, someone just sent me an e-mail on breast cancer awareness and one of the casuses of breast cancer was stated as anti-perspirants (not deodorants). It would appear they are bad for you. Zarin



Re: anti-perspirant - toxin blocker!!!

Posted by maryann on December 01, 1999 at 08:18:51:

In Reply to: anti-perspirant - toxin blocker!!! posted by vic on December 01, 1999 at 02:11:19:

Yes, I have read numerous articles on anti-perspirants causing breast cancer because we naturally sweat to release toxins, and the aluminum ?? in the deordorant stifles the toxins from being released and the article also said that most breast cancers on in the upper part of the breast closest to the armpit. I switched to crystal deordorant spray and also have used Jason's tea tree oil deordorant stick that doesn't have aluminum chlorohydrate (??). Better safe than sorry and it's an easy thing to change.



Re: anti-perspirant - toxin blocker!!!

Posted by Don't believe everything you read... on December 01, 1999 at 10:01:26:

In Reply to: anti-perspirant - toxin blocker!!! posted by vic on December 01, 1999 at 02:11:19:

I know sometimes it is better safe than sorry, but don't always believe everything you read. This has been proven to be an urban legend. You can go to the link below to read more about it...

http://urbanlegends.about.com/culture/urbanlegends/library/blnotes8.htm



Re: anti-perspirant - toxin blocker!!! (There are better reasons for not using them!) ARCHIVE under antiperspirants.

Posted by Walt Stoll on December 02, 1999 at 10:09:06:

In Reply to: anti-perspirant - toxin blocker!!! posted by vic on December 01, 1999 at 02:11:19:

Hi, Maryanne, Vic and Zarin.

Antiperspirants ARE bad for people but, from what I know, mainly from the absorbtion of aluminum and for those who develop sebaceous cysts under their arms from chronic blockage of the sweat glands---which, of course, is the major function of antiperspirants.

It IS true that sweat is a major mechanism of toxin excretion from the body (the other 3 are stool, urine and breath). However, the % lost from underarms, in relationship to the rest of the body, seems to me to be very small.

I agree with "don't believe everything you read" in that there is no creditable evidence of antiperspirants causing breast cancer or burdening the body with unexcreted toxins.

However there are plenty of proven reasons why antiperspirants are not good for anyone. I have not used them for 30 years and urge my family to think about them serously before using them.

It would be nice if those, who have had to have their entire underarms surgically removed and skin grafted for just this cause, would share what they think about this. I have surgically assisted at such procedures. They are crippling and deforming procedures but when this happens, & they are ONLY due to antiperspirants, it is a tragedy that was totally unnecessary.

Where are the warning lables? Where is the FDA on this one?

Walt



Where is the FDA? In court! Trying to convince the Supreme Court to ...

Posted by
Lincoln on December 02, 1999 at 22:54:03:

In Reply to: Re: anti-perspirant - toxin blocker!!! (There are better reasons for not using them!) ARCHIVE under antiperspirants. posted by Walt Stoll on December 02, 1999 at 10:09:06:

... allow them jurisdiction over a product that has no health benefits or claims (tobacco). According to today's news, the justices's are NOT buying the FDA argument.

Apparently the issue - as the court seems to see it - is whether the FDA can regulate/ban a substance that was never thought to be healthy. The court seems to be saying, just because tobacco is taken into the body does not necessarily make it an FDA problem - only things that have a purported health benefit are the purview of the FDA. If that's the case, then anti-perspirants would also not be an FDA problem.



Re: Where is the FDA? In court! Trying to convince the Supreme Court to ...

Posted by Walt Stoll on December 03, 1999 at 13:19:25:

In Reply to: Where is the FDA? In court! Trying to convince the Supreme Court to ... posted by Lincoln on December 02, 1999 at 22:54:03:

Thanks, Lincoln.

The real problem is how the FDA heads are chosen. The process is so politicized that the FDA's actions bear very little relationship to the welfare of the public.

For example: They are chosen from the ranks of the same businesses they are supposed to regulate. When the new administration comes in they are out. Where do you think they have to go for a job: right back into the industries from whence they came. If they do ANYTHING those companies do not like, while they are in office, they will never be hired again.

Their public posturing is just that: for public consumption, and nothing like what the FDA is supposed to be doing.

Walt



[ Antiperspirant Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!