It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vanity, a Deadly Sin. Cosmetic Industry Global Toxic agenda and Slave network

page: 3
49
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tigermoff
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


But why do these products need this many chemicals in them? Cant they just use natural stuff?


If you'd actually bothered to read the thread, especially my second post you'll find that the "natural" products contain cyanide and other such nasties too.

Smoke and mirrors, it's all about money.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Goathief]




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
There are many alternatives to the toxic products that are out there... I replaced toothpaste with Baking Soda... it works better and there's no extra chemicals in there... and I use organic soap to shower.... as a moisturizer and to shave, I use jojoba oil... and that's all... no chemicals involved at all... keep it simple and avoid all those ridiculous, chemical-laden products that are only feeding into the evil system...



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


S&F.


Just found this - after I posted this one:

Gang accused of killing to sell human fat

...I actually think the black market in human fat is escalating because of the new industry in human fat stem cell therapies - but I could be wrong... What do you think?

The Market for Human Fat

Thanks,
sofi



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JDooz
There are many alternatives to the toxic products that are out there... I replaced toothpaste with Baking Soda...

Baking soda or sodium bicarbonate (same thing) is used in metal cleaning, garbage disposal, polishing hard metals and as a pesticide. I'll quote from a medical website now:

Risks of acute oral bicarbonate ingestion include metabolic alkalosis, hypernatremia, hypertension, gastric rupture, hyporeninemia, hypokalemia, hypochloremia, intravascular volume depletion, and urinary alkalinization. Abrupt cessation of chronic excessive bicarbonate ingestion may result in hyperkalemia, hypoaldosteronism, volume contraction, and disruption of calcium and phosphorus metabolism.


... but why stop here?


I use jojoba oil...

You know that's used in agriculture as a pesticide/insecticide? It contains lead, arsenic and two glycosides with toxic effects. This is without including one of the main chemicals in jojoba (which is also toxic), erucic acid. This effects the heart tissue with myocardial lesions, induces lipodosis (abonormal fat accumulation/metabolism disorder) and has been linked to lung cancer.



and that's all... no chemicals involved at all...


Yeah, no chemicals at all.


As I stated before, if there was no chemical reaction with the body when applied it would be useless. All you're doing is not looking at it honestly from a scientific perspective, they ALL cause a reaction - just that one is controlled and the other DIY option isn't. All you're doing is falling for the marketing/propaganda of a competing sector and being mislead in the extreme.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Just to inject the most tiny bit of common sense into this thread....

Would everyone please read the original post again.

Note how the article contains many many scary words but neglects to ever mention the amount of chemical being talked about in the product? This is a common trick in "anti-" to scare the public into supporting bans. There are "anti" groups who have vowed to destroy the cosmetics industry for whatever reason.

This is how the campaign goes...

1 Identify any substances, no matter how minute the quantity which may be associated with toxic products. Ie Propylene Glycol ...its anti-freeze and its toxic. Anti-freeze is about 30 to 50 % Propylene Glycol. Of couse it is toxic but how much Propylene Glycol is in make-up. There is a safe level of exposure to everything. There is a very old maxim...the dose makes poison.

2. Demand labelling to "warn" the public.

3. Explain that the product has no redeeming benefit.

4. Hold the industry up for blackmail. Sue them in court. Demand laws that ensure your "grass roots" campaign has secure funding for the "public good"
Invest heavily in competing products that you can endorse.

5. Lobby your local politician - get bans in place so that everyone has no choice but to follow your dictates on what products to use.

6. Destroy the entire industry - sit back and count the money. Ignore the ranks of the previously employed.

7. Find another industry and start again.

Now the question is ...the "grass roots" anti has a vested interest in making you afraid. Your fear is worth money! But what is your interest in the matter? If you are truly concerned, I encourage you to do your own research.

People - at least demand to know what concentration of these "dangerous chemicals" are being talked about and then compare that concentration with established by science.

Remember - carcinogens are ubiquitous to the environment. Go to the most pristine place in the world and I guantee, you will find carcinogens. Even pine trees emit turpines and forest fires generate dioxins and furans.

Tired of control Freaks.


Strarred you as you put a case forward, but do you work for the cosmetic industry?

Perhaps I have fallen for the fearmongering as you say, but I dont think so, since moving from SLS I have no more skin irritation, no more hives, perhaps a co oincidence....
The main point of the post is to ask for regulation of this industry especially in the US where 89% of chemicals are unknown.
It is a self regulated insustry, which quite frankly is a load of rubbish, a law passed in the 1930's should certainly be repealed, especially when it deals with the use of dangerous chemicals in human consumption (or absorbtion if we going to get picky).

Besides the chemicals, I highlighted and you didnt address the incredble not needed animal cruelty, testing done on non compatible species, the use of illegal child labour, and the trafficiking of human fats and organs....perhaps we are just being over the top as you suggest?

The point is summary of the OP, read it again.....
"I suggest we insist on regulating this industry, cosmetic products deserve special attention from the regulators due to their scientific complexity or higher potential risk for the consumers' health, you have 89% unknown substances in there.

Next time you shop, check out if you are putting anti freeze in your system because its cheaper to use, avoid using companies that test on animals, look for "sparkles" cause you've had a kid slaving in the sun for hours to bring them to you, and simply pray your not getting human fat and rubbing it into your system."

"

Im not saying do away with the industry< im asking it becomes regulated, and people know the human and animal expence of their products.

Sound like your saying your competitor industry ..ie organic is to blame for all lies? and that no regulation should be in place? No animal cruelty or human illegal labour and trade takes place?

Wow I would never invest my reputation so much in a business I work for.



[edit on 20-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Justaposter
 


I heard about conditioner only wash, but didn't try it. What i'm doing now, using a small amount of organic shampoo and a normal amount of organic conditioner, works great for me, so why fix something if it's not broken. I was just saying too much shampoo would in the end destroy your tips, especially if you have long hair, like me.

I live in Germany, and the organic cosmetics i'm buying are the ones of a drug store chain, they're quite good and not more expensive than regular brand cosmetics.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Goathief
 


Interesting for all those chicken lovers our chickens are fed arsenic with in the diet to kill the parasites in their stomach, the FDA claims that once the arsenic is digested by the Chickens post no danger to human consumptions, while arsenic doesn't kill the chickens is highly toxic to humans.

Only certified organic Chickens can not have arsenic in their diet.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Shoot.

This is one of those things where I want to cover my ears and loudly chant "LA LA LA LA" until it goes away. lol.

I use all this stuff and I love all this stuff. It makes me look good. Smell good. Feel good. Makes me all shiney, buffed and new.

But I AM going to try to read some labels now. Maybe I can make some adjustments.

I have always said there is something we all do that is killing us. Some simple commonality we all do. This is probably one of those things.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Okay, I've re-read to start thinking about what I can change, but that has nothing to do with my post.

I couldn't agree more that the industry needs to be regulated. Yes, anything we pay money for, we have a right to know what is in it, and how it came to be obtained. That is our right as a consumer.

And I agree we can get noisy and start demanding regulation. But it will be difficult. Firstly, regulation will be expensive. Someone will have to be paid to do it. Secondly, who will it be? In the U.S. - the FDA? Or some entity similar to the FDA?

I have an FDA "thing". I don't trust them in the slightest. I think they are incompetent, careless, lackadaisical, and can be bought.

Remember all the dead dogs/cats a couple of years ago from the dog food that was made and imported from China? We had to have our pets dying all over the country before they looked into it. And our toothpaste that was imported from Mexico? The FDA really doesn't do a very good job. Not to mention the way they let big phamaceitical companies market drugs without proper clinical studies. I do, unfortunately, know this for a fact.

So, while I agree we do need regulation, I'm concerned it won't happen due to the expense. The ptb could just require them to include the ingredients on the label, but who is to say they would honest?

This is a fantastic thread, however. I'm glad you made the effort to do the research. It's worthwhile!



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Money talks. Companies will generally take the cheapest route, unless their customers object and show their displeasure by not using their product. Laws can be passed, but enforcement is slipshod at best. The most effective way to make changes is to refuse to buy the objectionable products, trying to raise the consciousness of the people you know who use them, and writing to the company to express your feelings.

A bunch of negative letters accompanied by a dip in sales will do more than laws with no teeth.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


Yes. Any suggestions as to how we could identify the products? Particularly those reportedly using human fat?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
If all these chemicals are so bad for us, why are we living longer?

www.medicalnewstoday.com...
www.webmd.com...

Why are many illnesses causing less deaths?
From article above:


Top Causes of Death
Here are the top causes of death for 2006 in the U.S., and the change in their age-adjusted death rate since 2005:
1. Heart disease: down 5.5%
2. Cancer: down 1.6%
3. Stroke: down 6.4%
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases (lung diseases): down 6.5%




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Soylent Green is people.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by numb99
 


It was pointed out somewhere in the thread, that this is not a "use now and die tomorrow" type of scenario. This would come using one of the toxic products over a period of time, and even then, how would they make the correlation? Particularly if no regulatory source is in place, and few toxins are identified by the manufacturer, if any? Nonetheless I believe they are there, and without proper studies to determine what long-term repercussions might be. Or they do know, and of course, don't care.
I don't find this in the least hard to believe. Sadly.

I do tend to switch products around. Try new things. Very few things I "hang" with for long, long periods. Maybe that's a good thing.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
The Four Feminine Codes

I don't know if the following is accurate, though I suspect it might be, based on the basis for this code to be presented earlier in the article and as well an answer to your second question.



The four feminine codes

We have developed four feminine codes that reflect the day-to-day strategies women employ in order to achieve their Utopian ends. The rare brands that appreciate how central these codes are to female behaviour will capture the imagination of the female customer.

 


The altruism code

This code reflects the female tendency to focus on the wellbeing of others rather than focus on their own individual success or achievement. It is borne out of the female ability to empathise - the ability to put oneself in another's shoes.
 


The aesthetic code

The aesthetic code reflects the female desire to make the world an attractive place. It is borne out of a belief that a more attractive environment is a safer, more harmonious and pleasant place to be for everyone.
 


The ordering code

This unglamorous code reflects the female belief that order offsets risk and creates harmony. Women's tendency to take on responsibilities like the running of the home, family matters and the meticulous planning of events are evidence of the ordering code.
 


The connecting code

The connecting code is concerned with the female need to build relationships and communities, the desire to draw people together and find common ground between them. Businesses that recognise the power of communities in building or destroying brands and use female networks to help provide momentum for the growth of their brands will benefit from 'free' marketing. They will also develop deeper, more commercially rewarding relationships with the audience.
What Women Want


And there they are. Check out the article and read the supportive advertising companies and corporate success that these 'codes' were based upon.

And why does the source you reference consider women the most targeted audience in the world?

My first impression would be to answer on my thoughts. I think the fact that women, historically being the oppressed sex, have finally stepped beyond that label and are now a viable source of economic attention. Consider the industrial revolution; women were nothing doing in finance and the cultivation of an industrial and financially fluent reality.

Modern day sees the necessity of women being apart of every aspect of our economic reach. Palin may or may not see the White House (I have no preference) but she is an example of a female in the upper echelon of percieved status quo.

But for an advertising answer...from the same link posted above...



Women make 80% of all consumer goods decisions, and are fast becoming the most important target audience on earth. By 2025, women will be richer than men and own 60% of the UK's personal wealth, according to female-oriented site Baglady. In the US, the female economy - worth $5tn (£2.6tn) - now makes up more than half the US GDP. Internationally, women contribute more than 40% of the developed world's GDP, says brand consultant Tom Peters.


Simply...women make and spend money...more than they have ever in the past.


Originally posted by sc2099
and I totally agree. How can we win this fight when we don't even understand the tactics they're using against us or our own weakness?


That is what makes the internet so important.
Link
 

I thought this could be useful here...since Cosmetics are huge in Advertising...



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I think that one of the problems that is faced is the way the terms NATURAL and ORGANIC are marketed at us and sometimes seen as interchangable. Most pharmacuticals in use today originated from plants and other natural sources. Since the big money has been available to them, they want to corner the market and tell you HERBAL medicine is quackery. Sulphuric acid is natural ( in nature ) but you wouldn`t want to drink it, as are many harmful things. Deadly nightshade grow wild, but is not for eating. One of the factors here is dilution rate, most things in life contain harmful substances, but in low dilutions and as long as we are not exposed to them in large doses are not a problem for us. However great amounts of these are used in manufactured products, including the chemical cocktail we all ingest in a nice healthy salad, all add up. We can not avoid them, so all we can do is minimise our intake and exposure to these things. I agree with some of the comments about organic products / crops etc still containing these things, but we can`t change the world, only our own way of living with these things. Criticising someone for trying and attempting to ridicule them for at least trying to help themselves, is the same line used by the big guns. At the end of the day a lot of people say that they make their own decisions and won`t be told how to live by TPTB, yet they think that is OK for them to tell others how to live. We have the freedom to make our own choices, as long as we don`t step out of line, we just have to take control of the things we can in our own life and do our best !



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Please be re-assured. I do not work for the cosmetics industry or their competitors in any way shape or form. Nor do I receive grants or any other form of support from anyone.

You see - scientific instruments are now so extremely sensitive that it is possible by spectroanalysis to detect a grain of salt added to an olympic size swimming pool at one end of the pool from the other end of the pool.

I am just asking you to use common sense! If the writer of the information presented in the original post truly wanted to inform you of something - they could have provided the concentration of the chemical they were referring to.

Why didn't they?

I see this scare tactic used over and over and over again to rouse public hysteria and promote social engineering.

As previously pointed out - arsenic and cyanide are organic and in sufficient concentrations can kill you! But your body needs both of this toxins as trace minerals for proper functioning!

The word organic simply means that the substance has carbon in it! it doesn't mean "non-toxic". Petro-chemicals are all organic.

I see this technique used when environmental activists claim to analyse people's blood to show the "toxic" elements and then proceed to provide a list of metals - and what those metals in high concentrations can do - without ever mentioning that those metals are necessary for the proper functioning of the human body.

To compare a product with 0.000000001 mg (that is a part per billion) with a product that is almost 40% pure chemical and claim toxicity is just STUPID! And it truly bothers me that nobody ever ever asks how much.

1 aspirin will cure your headache but 100 will kill you! Regardless of the toxicity of the substance, the poison is in the dose!

And many many many organic chemicals are far more lethal than non-organic chemicals.

I am simply tired of being socially-engineered by control freaks who will manipulate information in order to achieve a goal!

Either tell me how much chemical we are talking about or SHUT UP!

Do you really need an education or a PHD to understand this?
Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   




Either tell me how much chemical we are talking about or SHUT UP!

Do you really need an education or a PHD to understand this?
Tired of Control Freaks.



Thus speaks a control freak !

Whatever happened to civility and decorum ?

[edit on 21-11-2009 by Qwenn]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks

The word organic simply means that the substance has carbon in it! it doesn't mean "non-toxic". Petro-chemicals are all organic.


I think you might be confusing "organic" in "organic chemistry" with "organic" in "organic farming, food, clothing, etc." Two completely different things. Organic agriculture ("bio" in continental Europe) means simply growing stuff according to more strict regulations. Has nothing to do with carbon. Check your definitions first.


Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
1 aspirin will cure your headache but 100 will kill you! Regardless of the toxicity of the substance, the poison is in the dose!

And many many many organic chemicals are far more lethal than non-organic chemicals.


Most of us understand that perfectly. And that's why we need to make sure that the levels of dangerous chemicals to which we are exposed are minimum.


Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
I am simply tired of being socially-engineered by control freaks who will manipulate information in order to achieve a goal!


Now which goal might that be?


Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Either tell me how much chemical we are talking about or SHUT UP!


Spoke like a true control freak there.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by Wallachian]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Darn how do I make my own shampoo?! How can I make my own face paint?! Remember the movie Cat Woman with Halle Berry? In the movie, if you used the makeup and then stopped you would get sick and become disfigured.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by Teeky]



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join