Have you heard of the Wonderbar? Supposedly helps melasma
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:07 pm

bethany wrote:

I lOVE that kind of thinking and resulting info! (I think it also is what separates EDS from the typical skincare forum)

I totally agree. Very Happy

free skin care · Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:12 pm

Josee wrote:

I'm curious about the biology behind this phrase:

"This happens as the toxins trapped under the skin are flushed out. "

Which toxins are trapped under the skin? And what does it mean "under the skin"? The dermis? The epidermis??

This does not make much biological sense to me.

I am cross-posting a very nice explanation that Josee shared on the CP Science thread that also applies to the detox aspect of the WB.

I have also read in numerous places that the epidermis completely replaces itself in approximately 28 days.

Josee wrote:

Biologically, the dermis and the epidermis are separated by a membrane and dermal elements do not go up the epidermis. That is just basic histology and you will not find one single paper, article or book that claims otherwise.

This would be the same as saying... "I'm putting this cream on my face and it's making my face greasy because it brings the subcutaneous fat up" Rolling Eyes

That just does not exist.

Melasma, hyperpigmentation, age spots are in the epidermis so sometimes, as the skin renews the layers that have those spot do go up (since that's how the skin naturally renews, the bottom layers divide and push other layers up) and so when those cells dehydrate and die it can make the sun spots a little more pronounced. That is also what happens when, for e.g. you do IPL. IPL targets the cells with melanine, kills them, they get dehydrated and for a little they seem "darker". Also if you have a keratolytic effect, your skin will look drier. But that's about it... not much else is going on in the epidermis. All the rest of the things, the sagging, the collagen, etc... are on the dermis and the dermis CANNOT come out to the epidermis.

free skin care · Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:49 pm

Are blemishes or acne scars on the dermis or epidermis? If they sit superfically, then - by that theory- they should be gone within a months time. But they often are not. Same thing for clogged pores. I've seen some blemishes, scars and clogged pores sit around forever!! And I know they are not that deep.

free skin care · Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:58 pm

foxe wrote:

Are blemishes or acne scars on the dermis or epidermis? If they sit superfically, then - by that theory- they should be gone within a months time. But they often are not. Same thing for clogged pores. I've seen some blemishes, scars and clogged pores sit around forever!! And I know they are not that deep.

I'm certain that my new skin cells see the clogs, and then just take a detour around them to get to the top. Rolling Eyes

Editing to add: I just found this interesting explanation:

Quote:

What Causes a Pimple?
How Acne Breakouts Develop
...
The Hair Follicle
The hair follicle is a small, tube-like opening in the skin through which hair and sebum reach the skin's surface. The follicle consists of the pore opening, hair root and bulb, sebaceous duct, and sebaceous gland. Although it is contained within the dermis, the epidermis lines the inside of the hair follicle.

In a normal functioning follicle the sebaceous glands secrete oil, or sebum, into the pore. Typically, sebum and dead cells shed from the stratum corneum emerge at the skin's surface through the pore opening. In those with acne, however, this process goes awry.

In acne prone skin, sebum and dead skin cells easily become trapped within the follicle. This accumulation of cellular debris and sebaceous matter forms a hard plug that obstructs the pore opening. This obstruction is called a comedo. It manifests itself as non-inflamed bump or blackhead on the skin's surface.

Propionibacteria Acnes
Propionibacterium acnes (P. acnes) is the bacterium responsible for inflamed acne breakouts. P. acnes are regular residents within the hair follicle. Normally, they are harmless. However, in acne prone skin the P. acnes population grows out of control.

When a comedo blocks the pore opening, it creates an anaerobic environment, or a lack of oxygen within the follicle. This anaerobic environment, along with excess sebum within the pore, creates a favorable environment where P. acnes bacteria can thrive.

As the follicle becomes filled with sebum, dead cells, and bacteria, it begins to swell. The follicle wall ruptures and spills into the dermis. White blood cells rush in to fight the bacteria. Redness and swelling occurs, and pus is created. A pimple has now formed.

If the rupture in the follicle wall happens near the surface, the pimple is usually minor and heals quickly. It is when the break occurs deep within the dermis that more severe lesions, such as nodules and cysts, develop.
http://acne.about.com/od/acnebasics/a/development.htm

free skin care · Fri Apr 23, 2010 9:30 pm

foxe wrote:

Are blemishes or acne scars on the dermis or epidermis? If they sit superfically, then - by that theory- they should be gone within a months time. But they often are not. Same thing for clogged pores. I've seen some blemishes, scars and clogged pores sit around forever!! And I know they are not that deep.

Scars in general are in the dermis. They are formed because collagen is deposited in a weird way and thus creates a different texture, etc.

When a scar gets improved, it's not because the bad collagen or the scar tissue "comes up". That is just impossible. A scar improves because new collagen is deposited in a more orderly way while the old collagen degrades and is reabsorbed.

Pimples and blackheads are in the hair follicles, which are covered with epidermis but go down to the dermis.

So when the follicle becomes clogged with sebum and dead skins, we have blackheads. If the follicle becomes "infected" with bacteria, then you have pimples.

So for e.g. when someone takes RetinA, sometimes they experience a purging period because the keratolysis opens closed hair follicles and thus provides an "exit" for all the sebum + dead cells + bacterial exudate.

When we have sun spots (freckles, etc.) and melasma, these are on the epidermis so as the skin renews as comes up, they also come "up" naturally. What different treatments do is increase the cell turnover so that hopefully the melasma producing melanocytes will go up and be replaced with non-melasma producing melanocytes. If you also put a bleaching agent, then you have better chances of the new melanocytes not producing melasma.

But there's no such thing as "drawing toxins out". You have sebum, you have hair follicles than have "gunk" and other things and yes, you can get rid of that. That is the science behind clay masks. Clay masks on one hand get rid of the oil and sebum (and any kind of substance attached to it) plus they have minerals and trace elements that have the potential of being absorbed into the skin and giving beneficial effects.

But there's no such thing that will selectively go and "capture toxins". I would even like to know which "toxins" they're referring to.

The same thing with this phrase: "If you have more damage, then your skin will go through a stronger healing phase and you can get dryness, redness, peeling, brown patches". This phrase makes no sense from a simple histology/dermatology point of view, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

If you have 10 sun spots or 100 sunspots, the epidermis will react the same to the product. It will peel or not. Unless you have something like IPL where the wavelength specifically targets melanocytes and kills them specifically, then yes if you have more sun spots your skin will look different than if you have less but even then it will not be a question of "healing crisis". It will just be that those who have more spots will have then more darker spots than those who have less spots.

People who use hydroquinone target melanocytes specifically. Still there is the same reaction whether you have horrible sun spots or less.

The notion that somehow if you have more "damage" on your skin(and still people conveniently do not define what this "damage" is) then you will get a stronger reaction from a product is at best, a well-intended metaphor to explain things to people. But it definitely has nothing to do with biology. A small exception can be done for comedones and pimples given the fact that if you DO have more plugged hair follicles a keratolytic can make it seem worse due to the opening of more hair follicles but that's about it.

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:48 am

Great questions that I hope we get answers to. (I sent an email to Tiffany with Lacy53's questions from the previous page and will report back when I get answers.)

I am continuing on with the bar for 2 more weeks, and then I will be adding in my "actives", as I am all about the collagen production. The dryness is pretty much gone. This happened so quickly. I think it is due to 1) cutting back to keeping the bar on only 3-5 minutes, and 2) the humidity coming back into the air here. My tiny pimples are almost gone as of this morning, as well. Let's see if my skin starts improving now, or goes back to the bone dry/excessive wrinkle look.

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 10:38 am

WhiteWolf wrote:

Sorry everyone else does not like the WB, I'm continuing to use it and pleased with things so far. My skin hasn't looked this clear in ages. Prior I was using 6 different cleansers, cabinet full, and this at least gets rid of my blackheads.

WhiteWolf - I was thinking about your success earlier today. Do you think any of it could be attributed to stopping all of your other products?

I currently have a theory that part of the success of the WB is because you DO stop all other products, which could be causing the problems to begin with. You stop everything, the epidermis completely replaces itself over the 6 week "healing crisis" and your skin is clear. Then when you start adding other products back in one by one (or not), and problems start back up, the product is deemed to be "chemically incompatible." But at the end of the day, if you had stopped that product without using the WB, you would have had the same results.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 10:49 am

rileygirl wrote:

Great questions that I hope we get answers to. (I sent an email to Tiffany with Lacy53's questions from the previous page and will report back when I get answers.)

I am reporting back with the "answers". (Don't shoot the messenger! Very Happy

)

Per Tiffany/Wonderbar:

As you know, we are not the manufacturers. We are the distributors. The testimonials speak for themselves. I talk to hundreds of people a month who use the bar and I use it myself. The bar is helping many people combat skin issues that they have not been able to get under control in the past. This is the most important selling point for us. The bar is not considered a food or a drug. There is no problem with the labeling. C17789 is paraffin. I addressed this earlier on the forum. Chlorey'nahre is developed through the use of nanotechnology from European ingredients- the finished product is patented in France and called CLO- Chlorey'Nahre. In order to create a "bar", you have to use a binder. The binders in all bars have a high pH level. Wonderbar has a base that is pH balanced, which is patented. The bar has been sold in the United States since January of 2009. The Chlorey'nahre and the binder created for the bar set it apart from other bars. I have not been given the patent numbers by the manufacturer in Malaysia, nor was this one of our requirements to become distributors of the bar. We used it and liked what we saw. We continue to learn about benefits every day.

I have confidence in the product or I wouldn't be selling it. I don't think there is anything out there that is better, but that is just my opinion based on using it for a long time, and many people share my opinion after using the bar themselves. If I get into the business of going back and forth with people who want to debate every detail of the bar, then I am spending negative energy on defending the product, which I don't need to do. People can research the product and decide for themselves, or just try it, which is exactly what is happening here on this forum. The great news is that everyone gets to try different products and share their experiences with other people....and there are many products to choose from. As with any product, if you believe the claims are fraudulent, if you believe or suspect that the ingredients are unsafe or misrepresented somehow, if you think the manufacturer is illegally claiming patents, then you should absolutely not buy the product. It's really that simple.

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 10:54 am

bethany wrote:

I currently have a theory that part of the success of the WB is because you DO stop all other products, which could be causing the problems to begin with. You stop everything, the epidermis completely replaces itself over the 6 week "healing crisis" and your skin is clear. Then when you start adding other products back in one by one (or not), and problems start back up, the product is deemed to be "chemically incompatible." But at the end of the day, if you had stopped that product without using the WB, you would have had the same results.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

That definitely makes sense to me regarding pore issues and acne issues. But, what about the issues of sun spots, wrinkles, etc?

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:06 am

rileygirl wrote:

bethany wrote:

I currently have a theory that part of the success of the WB is because you DO stop all other products, which could be causing the problems to begin with. You stop everything, the epidermis completely replaces itself over the 6 week "healing crisis" and your skin is clear. Then when you start adding other products back in one by one (or not), and problems start back up, the product is deemed to be "chemically incompatible." But at the end of the day, if you had stopped that product without using the WB, you would have had the same results.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

That definitely makes sense to me regarding pore issues and acne issues. But, what about the issues of sun spots, wrinkles, etc?

Some products do make your skin more photo-sensitive, so there could be an automatic reduction in that by stopping other products.

The person that did the video testimonial said that her melasma had resolved, but she had just had a baby and her hormones were totally out of whack...it probably would have resolved on its own. And the woman on the other forum that posted pics had no apparent improvement in her afters.

And have we seen any pics of real wrinkle improvement from US people?

I have seen zit improvement pics here in the US, but I think that's pretty much it!

Editing to add: Executive decision time...no more WB for ME, until Riley sees wrinkle results. If she does, then I'm back on board. Very Happy

Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:09 am

I started using the Wonderbar on April 17, and have mixed feelings about the product. It does seem to somehow react differently depending on the severity, area or type of damage on my face.

My eyelids turned red and a thick layer of clear dried skin formed, after several days it pealed off in large pieces. The area was tender and very wrinkled. Under my eyes, redness disappeared almost immediately but, the area became very wrinkled and tight and the skin is now flaking off. It has reduced some of the many white bumps that have bothered me for years. The wonder bar is acting like a peal in these areas. This is the area that I have the most sun damage, because most peals, lasers and products are not allowed in these areas. I have tried to used Retin A on these areas for the last six months and have never had any type of pealing or reaction. The area is now less dry and wrinkled than a few days ago, but still more wrinkled than before I started the product.

The area around my mouth and behind my ears started reacting yesterday. I am becoming dry, red, wrinkled and my jowls are sagging a bit. My neck is a bit sandpapery, dry and red. The pores on my nose and chin have diminished.

My forehead temples and cheeks are reacting the least. My forehead has small bumps that the dermatologists believes are old acne scars or small cysts. My temples have been breaking out with cystic acne because of trying to use the OCM. My cheeks have a few deep milia that I need to get rid of. The acne is slowly clearing up, but it would have been clearing regardless of using the Wonderbar. The good thing is that I do not have any new acne forming and the small bumps on my temple have disappeared. I have tried to speed up the process on my forehead by leaving the clay on overnight.

The healing crisis is not a pleasant experience. I have not been happy about how bad my face looks. It has been difficult to disguise the dryness and wrinkles that the Wonderbar has caused. I have found that a lot of moisturizer and tinted sunscreen is the best thing to use over the wrinkle areas if you have to go out. If anyone plans on trying the Wonderbar, I would advise that it be at a time when you have a light schedule. In this one week I have had days that I look OK and others that I look terrible.

I can see the bar working to correct some of my problem areas. If the wrinkles and dry skin go away like promised I believe that the pain will be worth it. If you have ever had a peal or a laser treatment you know that there is down time involved. It all comes down to seeing if the product eventually does what it promises. I plan on continuing to use the Wonderbar in hopes that it actually live up to its claims.

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:16 am

Hi, I haven't stopped using my other normal products. Although, I never used Retinol products or acids really (tried Vitamin C but didn't like it). Never really "stuck" with a skincare line either, been always searching for something that works.

Today I'm wearing liquid foundation & using DDF Advanced Moisture Defense UV Cream but I already bought it prior to the WB and sits better under makeup than CeraVe. (Still searching for a sunscreen...) Most days I skip foundation all together though, maybe that helps.

Lately at night, I've not been using anything because we've all been sick with colds but I still use Easy Eye Solutions. Last night I did notice my under-eye wrinkles looking worse though .I did find that it was a mistake to use my half-used jar of Fresh Creme Ancienne, way too heavy and caused some milia. So products that aren't so heavy, is definitely better.

Guess I'll see how it goes...after today of clogging my pores that is.

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:23 pm

Tiffany replied: C17789 is paraffin

Here is an interesting little exercise that anyone can do. Google "paraffin C17789". You will get the following hits:

Eumora, WonderBar, Amoorea, Jeuno, Mior, Moor (and probably others).

They are ALL bar cleansers distributed in various countries that appear to have the same wonderful results as the WonderBar. Apparently the WonderBar manufacturer claims to also make the Eumora, but the others are imitators of the patented base, with (in some cases) different additives.

If you do a search for "paraffin INCI" you will discover that manufacturers can label the ingredient in various ways, depending on the form or weight of the ingredient. For example: soft paraffin (INCI: petrolatum), microcristalline wax (INCI: microcristalline wax), paraffin oil (INCI: mineral oil, paraffinum liquidum), ceresine (INCI: ceresine, ozokerite). INCI is short for the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients and is recognized as the standard for labelling cosmetics products including soap.

What you will NOT find is C17789 as a type of paraffin. In fact you will not find C17789 as a recognized ingredient. You will however find CI 7789 ( the letter "I" rather than the number "1") ... it is nothing more than Titanium Dioxide which is commonly used in cosmetic products as a colour additive.

What I find strange is the claim that the bars listed above are manufactured by imitators who have "borrowed" the patented base even though it is patented (and apparently there are various lawsuits pending). If that is true, how could they all include the ingredient known as C17789 on the ingredient list when it doesn't exist? What I believe is simply nothing more than a typo seems to have spread throughout the world unnoticed by any manufacturer. I think C17789 is Titanium Dioxide contrary to what Tiffany has stated in her last message. In fact, the Aveeno bar I referenced on page 1 of this thread with a highly similar base includes titanium dioxide. BTW it is recommended for oily or combination skin.

I have searched for any patent which might be attributable to WonderBar and have come up empty. Normally natural ingredients can not be patented, but I did find an international patent for the extraction of oil from algae which can be used in a facial bar (it is an American patent-holder though). The patent isn't for the algae oils per se, but rather is for the technology to extract the oils for various uses. I have also searched for a patent for a soap base, but didn't find any simply because a patent is awarded for something new and novel and the WonderBar base is neither (since the Aveeno bar is very similar and preceded the WonderBar). I may have missed something though in my searches.

Technically WonderBar is not a soap based on its formulation and marketing claims, but would be considered a cosmetic product. It is subject to various labeling guidelines including "the ingredients must be listed in descending order of predominance." There is no provision for listing the base ingredients first, followed by listing the actives/additives. FDA Cosmetic Labeling Guide excerpts can be viewed here:

http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/CosmeticLabelingLabelClaims/CosmeticLabelingManual/ucm126444.htm

I don't use this product and have nothing against it personally; I do have problems with the marketing claims and price though.

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:32 pm

Lacy, is the Aveeno bar patented?

Editing to add:

I found another pH balanced bar called the PanOxyl Bar . While Aveeno contains SA, this one contains benzoyl peroxide and is marketed to acne sufferers.

http://www.drugstore.com/qxp216497_333181_sespider_1_1/panoxyl/bar_benzoyl_peroxide_5_acne_wash_regular_strength.htm

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:16 pm

Johnson & Johnson, the parent company of Aveeno, has many patents for skin cleansing products but I could not find any patent which would be for a bar/solid cleanser. So unless I missed something (which is possible) I would say no the Aveeno bar is not patented.

BTW, pH balanced isn't really a defined term. To some people it means pH neutral (7.0); to others it means pH matched to healthy human skin (approximately 5.5 or so).

Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:34 pm

I'm sitting here typing with wonderbar on my face.

Here are my thoughts:

1.) It's in a bar form, but I see it more as a mask. I do my normal cleansing facial Shu oil in the shower. Then when I'm dried off and in my pj's, I wet the bar and apply it over my face. I actually wet the bar and rub it over my face so it's thick. I keep it on my face for about 30-45 minutes. I can see how people talk about the price, but I've paid a lot of money for a good "mask" before. In fact the thick layer I apply dries like a mask.

2.) I did a few deep rolls over my skin earlier this week. The few days I've used the bar as a mask, a lot of the melasma-ish areas have turned really dark and are ready to peel. However, this is probably because of the roll. But I do believe the bar used as a mask is helping the areas even more. It seems to really attach the dark areas for some reason. Fine with me.

3.) I never get pimples and I feel a few coming up under the skin. It's helped with blackheads on my nose as well.

4.) I don't plan on giving up my retin-a gel at night.

So to sum it up, it seems like a mask in a bar form to me. And I plan on keeping up with the rest of my skincare regime as normal. Consists of oil cleaner in the shower. retin-a gel at night and sunscreen during the day.

Now I'm also curious about this ointment/gel from mexico. I've been looking for something to use every other night. I feel like I shouldn't be using tret. gel every night. Though I love what it does for my skin/antiaging.

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:37 pm

Spence, are you using your tret. gel every night now? (as in during your first 6 weeks on the WB?)

Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:56 pm

bethany wrote:

Spence, are you using your tret. gel every night now? (as in during your first 6 weeks on the WB?)

Yes. I plan on it. Although I generally don't use as much tret. after a roll. I've used the gel every night for years now.

I'm treating this as a mask treatment for deep cleansing. I'll see after 2 weeks what it's like layered on thick every night.

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:02 pm

spence wrote:

Yes. I plan on it. Although I generally don't use as much tret. after a roll. I've used the gel every night for years now.

I'm treating this as a mask treatment for deep cleansing. I'll see after 2 weeks what it's like layered on thick every night.

Spence, are you just starting the WB? And am I understanding that you will use your RA nightly, plus the WB as a mask nightly, as well?

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:05 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

Technically WonderBar is not a soap based on its formulation and marketing claims, but would be considered a cosmetic product.

Lacy, this is a question out of curiosity. I understand that based on the marketing claims the Wonderbar is considered by the FDA a cosmetic product.

Now taking the FDA out of the question, wouldn't the formulation of the wonderbar be considered a soap based on the fact that it has anionic surfactancts? I'm in biochemistry and molecular biology, not industrial chemistry so I don't know how the definition works Embarassed

Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:19 pm

rileygirl- I'm a few days into it. Only using it as a mask in the evenings. I am continuing tret. as well, yes.

As much as I've been through with skincare since I was about 14, it takes a lot for me to consider not using other products. For me I'm using the bar as a mask.

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:25 pm

spence wrote:

rileygirl- I'm a few days into it. Only using it as a mask in the evenings. I am continuing tret. as well, yes.

As much as I've been through with skincare since I was about 14, it takes a lot for me to consider not using other products. For me I'm using the bar as a mask.

I will be so curious to hear how your skin is doing in about 1 week into that routine. I am curious if you will get Sahara desert dry with that routine!

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:26 pm

This is a very simple definition but it's my understanding that a surficant is necessary to break up and dissolve oils?

synthetic detergent [sin′thed·ik di′tər·jənt]
(materials)
A liquid or solid material able to dissolve oily materials and disperse them (or emulsify them) in water. Also known as syndet.
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 6E, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=synthetic+detergent

Josee wrote:

Lacy53 wrote:

Technically WonderBar is not a soap based on its formulation and marketing claims, but would be considered a cosmetic product.

Lacy, this is a question out of curiosity. I understand that based on the marketing claims the Wonderbar is considered by the FDA a cosmetic product.

Now taking the FDA out of the question, wouldn't the formulation of the wonderbar be considered a soap based on the fact that it has anionic surfactancts? I'm in biochemistry and molecular biology, not industrial chemistry so I don't know how the definition works Embarassed

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:39 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

This is a very simple definition but it's my understanding that a surficant is necessary to break up and dissolve oils?

synthetic detergent [sin′thed·ik di′tər·jənt]
(materials)
A liquid or solid material able to dissolve oily materials and disperse them (or emulsify them) in water. Also known as syndet.
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 6E, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=synthetic+detergent

It is my understanding that soaps have anionic surfactants that result from saponification. So I would think that Sodium Coco-Sulfate is one that results from the saponification of coconut oil + sodium hydroxide kind of thing and same thing for Disodium Lauryl Sulfosuccinate. So... If someone can give me a chemistry lesson on why it's not considered a soap and what constitutes a soap I'd be grateful!

free skin care · Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:47 pm

I am definitely not into chemistry, but here is what I found on soap vs detergent:

Back to the focus, real soap is a result of this saponification process using a fat or oil and an alkali. What then are synthetic soap bars? According to the FDA the product you regard as soap may not be soap at all, but a synthetic detergent "beauty" or "bath" bar.

These and similar names have used by companies to hide the fact that you are actually using a product mostly made up of synthetic chemicals. What are some of these chemicals? Well, if the claim of being antibacterial is present, so is the ingredients Triclosan and Triclocarban.

The chemical names, Tetrasodium EDTA, 2,6 d-t butyl-p-cresol, Sodium Stearate, Trisodium Etidronate, sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate, Sodium Cocoyl isethionate, cocoaamido-propylbetaine, Sodium alkylbenzenesulfonate, Lauric acid, Sodium cocoglyceryl ether sulfonate.

Automatic Message

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.