| Author |
Message |
Mabsy
Moderator
 
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Posts: 9644
|
|
 |
Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:52 am  |
Hi all,
I'm posting this link on behalf of milbader, who is not yet able to post links:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28796417/
Btw, welcome to the forum milbader! |
_________________
45, NW20, combination skin |
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:47 am |
Thank you Mabsy and Milbader!
This has got to be one of the most depressing articles I've read in a while! 
And the author is right-- it's like finding out the Easter bunny in in fact Dracula!  
What's the most potent antioxidant cocktail out there, and where do I buy it??? |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:36 pm |
| fatswan, Skinceuticals C, E, Ferulic has studies to prove its added sun protection when worn under sunscreen. You can do a search for that product. You'll get a lot of useful info! |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:28 pm |
The study was not valid. It was not double-blinded, randomized nor conducted on humans.
The only sunscreens tested were 3 of the most common CHEMICALS: octyl methoxycinnamate, octocrylene and benophenone -3.
The article goes on to say that "it SEEMS that any sunscreen has the potential to create free radicals, but more study is needed".
Not very scientific and no reason to throw out the PHYSICAL sunblock with photostability.
There have been studies done on the newer photostable hybrid sunblocks that show merit and are more valid than this sensationalist study. |
_________________
✪ My go-to products: MyFawnie.BigCartel.com ✪ |
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:32 pm |
| Seems best to use physical sunscreen as chemical sunscreen can create a problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:39 pm |
| fawnie wrote: |
The study was not valid. It was not double-blinded, randomized nor conducted on humans.
The only sunscreens tested were 3 of the most common CHEMICALS: octyl methoxycinnamate, octocrylene and benophenone -3.
The article goes on to say that "it SEEMS that any sunscreen has the potential to create free radicals, but more study is needed".
Not very scientific and no reason to throw out the PHYSICAL sunblock with photostability.
There have been studies done on the newer photostable hybrid sunblocks that show merit and are more valid than this sensationalist study. |
Exactly, that was ridiculous of them to even imply that physical sunblocks are dangerous too based on their ZERO EVIDENCE.
"We did this study on ingredients A, B, C, and we got this result, and based on that we think ingredients X and Y may be dangerous also. More study is needed" |
_________________
24 yrs old. favorite sunscreen right now: Burnout [now 35] |
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:35 pm |
| Research techniques are so important. A researcher friend of mine showed me how easy it is to skew results. |
_________________
33 yr. old (how did that happen?) with blue eyes, blonde hair and confused combination skin |
|
|
|
| Wed Aug 06, 2025 8:02 am |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
