Sensodyne 75ml £1 @ POUNDWORLD with NO dreaded SLS!
308°Expired

Sensodyne 75ml £1 @ POUNDWORLD with NO dreaded SLS!

57
Found 4th Feb 2015
I read the newspaper articles that some cheap toothpastes contain SLS (Sodium Lauryl Sulfate) and they are NO good for your teeth. I set to hunt for Sensodyne and they are all very expensive. I bought one for £1.99 for 50ml and then found that PoundWorld was selling 75ml for £1. Of course, the savvy British public emptied the shelves! I telephoned the power that be in a store and ordered a dozen. Any concerned parents would do the same. The end of the day, this £1 contains no SLS the evil words. I told my son to throw away the rest!

I never remembered the name of this shop - well, they are all Pound??? so I give out a link so that you can google the locations of shops nearest to you. I never knew its name until I stumbled into such lovely finds!

57 Comments

There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.

If you sweat about Daily Mail scare stories, you might as well live in a cave.

The risks are minute, and alternatives - surprise surprise - are expensive. Ask the Mail which toothpaste company pays their 'expert' - and ask for his evidence.

Even the Daily Horror says "‘There’s absolutely no credible research so far that shows SLS is linked to mouth cancers, but it is known and has been shown to be linked to mouth ulcers in some people’"

I'm all for cutting down exposure to chemicals (I use natural cleaners like baking soda and vinegar) but throwing things away on the basis of questionable news paper articles is a bit much. A quick google shows plenty of websites filled with pseudo science but no peer reviewed papers suggesting SLS is anything other than a mild irritant......and so is lemon juice!

Original Poster

Quadrille

There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.If you sweat about Daily Mail … There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.If you sweat about Daily Mail scare stories, you might as well live in a cave.The risks are minute, and alternatives - surprise surprise - are expensive. Ask the Mail which toothpaste company pays their 'expert' - and ask for his evidence.Even the Daily Horror says "‘There’s absolutely no credible research so far that shows SLS is linked to mouth cancers, but it is known and has been shown to be linked to mouth ulcers in some people’"



Quadrille

There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.If you sweat about Daily Mail … There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.If you sweat about Daily Mail scare stories, you might as well live in a cave.The risks are minute, and alternatives - surprise surprise - are expensive. Ask the Mail which toothpaste company pays their 'expert' - and ask for his evidence.Even the Daily Horror says "‘There’s absolutely no credible research so far that shows SLS is linked to mouth cancers, but it is known and has been shown to be linked to mouth ulcers in some people’"



Daily Rag? You mean? I agree. But I also found this;

Sodium lauryl sulfate can increase the incidence of aphthous ulcers - This has been confirmed in a handful of studies and it is suggested that the denaturing effect of SLS on the oral mucin layer, with exposure of the underlying epithelium, induces an increased incidence of recurrent aphthous ulcers. Find our more about aphthous ulcers here.
When it comes down to choosing a toothpaste, it makes the most sense to select one that is sodium lauryl sulfate free to avoid the potential downsides and maximize the oral health benefits of toothpaste. If you are curious as to which toothpaste has the most beneficial properties, consult our post on the best toothpaste.

My teeth became sensitive about 20 years ago. I tried Sensodyne with little success. I found Colgate Sensitive Whitening much better.
NB: American Dentists do not recommend Sensodyne!
Edited by: "ssaass" 4th Feb 2015

Original Poster

This is not expensive at all. £1 for 75ml. You can easily pay for that for an SLS containing toothpaste for more than £1 for 100ml!

Thanks aym280, I will give this a try. My partner and my son suffer with terrible mouth ulcers, so worth giving this a go.

ssaass

My teeth became sensitive about 20 years ago. I tried Sensodyne with … My teeth became sensitive about 20 years ago. I tried Sensodyne with little success. I found Colgate Sensitive Whitening much better.NB: American Dentists do not recommend Sensodyne!



Why would an American dentist recommend a good toothpaste? That is like a divorce layer suggesting marriage guidance.

I had very mild sensitivity in a tooth and tried sensodyne. A couple of weeks later random teeth were becoming so sensitive it was unbearable. I stopped using the toothpaste and it cleared up. Cold from me.

kar22145

Thanks aym280, I will give this a try. My partner and my son suffer with … Thanks aym280, I will give this a try. My partner and my son suffer with terrible mouth ulcers, so worth giving this a go.



I suffered from endless mouth ulcers for years, then stopped eating raw tomatoes (18 months ago) and haven't had one since. Might be worth a try

If you're after cheap toothpaste without SLS, then look no further than Aldi!

Aldi - Total Care Toothpaste

I used to suffer terrible mouth ulcers, until I too read about SLS - once I started looking for toothpaste that didnt contain it, I found the sensative range from Aldi was perfect, and cheap!

I use Tesco Value toothpaste which costs 25p. I asked my dentist if this was sensible and she said as long as I brush my teeth regularly any toothpaste will do.

Quadrille

There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.If you sweat about Daily Mail … There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.If you sweat about Daily Mail scare stories, you might as well live in a cave.The risks are minute, and alternatives - surprise surprise - are expensive. Ask the Mail which toothpaste company pays their 'expert' - and ask for his evidence.Even the Daily Horror says "‘There’s absolutely no credible research so far that shows SLS is linked to mouth cancers, but it is known and has been shown to be linked to mouth ulcers in some people’"

Quadrille

There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.If you sweat about Daily Mail … There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.If you sweat about Daily Mail scare stories, you might as well live in a cave.The risks are minute, and alternatives - surprise surprise - are expensive. Ask the Mail which toothpaste company pays their 'expert' - and ask for his evidence.Even the Daily Horror says "‘There’s absolutely no credible research so far that shows SLS is linked to mouth cancers, but it is known and has been shown to be linked to mouth ulcers in some people’"



I would say having 1 Fish&Chips + Red Bull has more life threatening consequences than using this all your life

aym280

I read the newspaper articles that some cheap toothpastes contain SLS … I read the newspaper articles that some cheap toothpastes contain SLS (Sodium Lauryl Sulfate) and they are NO good for your teeth.Any concerned parents would do the same. The end of the day, this £1 contains no SLS the evil words. I told my son to throw away the rest!



Ahhhh, British newspapers. The pinnacle of scientific understanding. The bringers of truth to the world. The top source of information to people who like to blame others for issues, with a side serving of paranoia thrown in.

Let's not bother to look up scientific papers / journals on the matter. The corporate backed world of newspapers have us covered, with their ambiguous articles - all worded in such a way that they can't get sued. Of course, if anything has to be retracted, it'll be on page 47, in the bottom hand corner in a font size of 8.

The government are also clearly involved in this, because such a dangerous product couldn't possibly be allowed by a government not taking backhanders from 'big pharma'.

Posts like this illustrate the sad state the UK has become in terms of scientific understanding. You're willing to believe almost anything if it's written in capital letters in a newspaper. You can't be bothered to go and look at the freely available scientific, peer reviewed studies on it. If you do search about it, you'll come back with 'scare articles' without a single reference or peer review being present, because the ones that have managed to pass through the actual scientific process don't align with your paranoid views. Views you didn't even have before you read it in a paper written by sensationalist corporate aligned 'authors', who's only job is to make clickbait like headlines so you buy their rubbish.

Stop living in fear. Educate yourself. Do some research. Become a better person because of it. Change the world: get involved in anything STEM based and pass this onto your children, and not unguided fear. You're better than that, and you have the ability to do it now if you wish.
No, it's not easy. Yes, it's easier to turn off your brain and regurgitate the fear that they want you to live in. But the reward for rising above it all and being able to pass down the best gift you ever could to your children: The conviction that you should interrogate the presented information and look for any nonsense that is within it. They'll get further in life because of it, we progress faster as a species because of it, and humanity will reap the benefits from proper investigation and dismissal of theories in the form of scientific advances.

I understand now that writing all this in response to you being paranoid about some toothpaste is probably going to be lost on you. I expect you to read over this and either not understand it, or get annoyed that it doesn't fit your views. But before you respond, I just ask you to do one thing: Spend an hour researching SLS using only peer reviewed sources and bring the evidence of harm back here for us all to see. Not newspaper articles, blogs, or any other scaremongering website. But from real scientific based papers - ones that you, me or anyone else can review and write a counter scientific response to.
The reasons newspapers don't write their own journals is because they can't. They're not intelligent enough and lack evidence. And they're dragging you down with them. Rise above it.

TL;DR - SLS in toothpaste makes the terrorists stronger.

Oh it only causes ulcers not cancers, that's OK then!

We can't know the true dangers of SLS and fluoride because any studies that show them will be shot down. Big pharma has lots of money and power. Scientists don't want their rep damaged. I buy green people toothpaste from Amazon. Mandarin flavour mmmm.

Also get SLS free shampoo.

Good price for sensodyne.

Scientific journals used to claim tobacco/cocaine/LSD was good for us too.

Quadrille

There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.If you sweat about Daily Mail … There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.If you sweat about Daily Mail scare stories, you might as well live in a cave.The risks are minute, and alternatives - surprise surprise - are expensive. Ask the Mail which toothpaste company pays their 'expert' - and ask for his evidence.Even the Daily Horror says "‘There’s absolutely no credible research so far that shows SLS is linked to mouth cancers, but it is known and has been shown to be linked to mouth ulcers in some people’"

Quadrille

There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.If you sweat about Daily Mail … There's plenty which have 100ml for £1 too.If you sweat about Daily Mail scare stories, you might as well live in a cave.The risks are minute, and alternatives - surprise surprise - are expensive. Ask the Mail which toothpaste company pays their 'expert' - and ask for his evidence.Even the Daily Horror says "‘There’s absolutely no credible research so far that shows SLS is linked to mouth cancers, but it is known and has been shown to be linked to mouth ulcers in some people’"



I don't know where you are drawing conclusions from such as SLS is no good for your teeth and is evil but I found this:

In 1994, a preliminary crossover study showed patients had a significantly higher number of aphthous ulcers after using SLS-containing toothpaste, compared with an SLS-free toothpaste. A follow-up double-blind crossover study in 1996 further supported these results, as did a separate study in 1997.

If you look at these studies, they consist of 10-30 patients and have a history of apthous ulcers. Not exactly enough to warrant throwing everything away.

It continues:
However, a double-blind crossover study published in 1999 failed to find any statistically significant difference. A double-blind crossover study in 2012 also failed to find a significant difference in number of ulcers, but did find a significant difference in ulcer duration and pain scores. According to the 2012 study, patients using an SLS-free toothpaste experienced faster healing of ulcers and less ulcer-related pain on average than patients using SLS-containing toothpaste.

These studies outnumbered (47-90) the number of patients in the previous mentioned studies but crucially they also had a history of ulcers. This means that SLS may cause trouble if you are sensitive to it and let's not forget anyone can be sensitive to anything. It does not mean we need to read every label on everything and start panicking.

Good price though so heat.


Edited by: "yrreb88" 4th Feb 2015

friiza

Oh it only causes ulcers not cancers, that's OK then!We can't know the … Oh it only causes ulcers not cancers, that's OK then!We can't know the true dangers of SLS and fluoride because any studies that show them will be shot down. Big pharma has lots of money and power. Scientists don't want their rep damaged. I buy green people toothpaste from Amazon. Mandarin flavour mmmm.Also get SLS free shampoo.Good price for sensodyne.



Oh I see so if science is too one sided and provides too much evidence that doesn't fit your views it must be wrong, biased and in the pockets of big companies? What about NGOs that make the same claims?


friiza

Scientific journals used to claim tobacco/cocaine/LSD was good for us too.



Was this in the 50s? Think you are twisting things slightly for example nicotine has been proven to have positive effects but it's obviously found in tobacco.

You have to be mentally retarded to believe the newspapers, supposedly the ingredients are bad for you but what are the alternative? Sensodyne is the best toothpaste to use, stay away from Colgate, its cheap for a reason

Not twisting anything, just making the point that even rigorous scientific review processes do not guarantee these 'facts' can be disproved in time.

Also NGOs & charities all get their money from somewhere- largely business or government. No difference really except they are even less elected/accountable than government.

Follow the money if you want to know why they espouse such views.

friiza

Oh it only causes ulcers not cancers, that's OK then!We can't know the … Oh it only causes ulcers not cancers, that's OK then!We can't know the true dangers of SLS and fluoride because any studies that show them will be shot down. Big pharma has lots of money and power. Scientists don't want their rep damaged. I buy green people toothpaste from Amazon. Mandarin flavour mmmm.Also get SLS free shampoo.



SLS does NOT cause cancer. Period.

With regards chemicals being dangerous, even so called "natural" products contain "chemicals". Pure water is a "chemical"!! I really don't see why a naturally occurring chemical would necessarily be any worse than one that is manufactured. There are many chemicals in nature that are deadly. Venom from snakes and poisonous berries spring to mind. Equally, there are many man made chemicals that are completely harmless.

If you lived a truly a "Chemical free" existence you'd be dead.

Voted 'cold' as I don't like the "If you give this to your kids/wife/dog then you are evil/stupid" sort of scaremongering. I almost feel like I'm being emotionally bullied into buying 'green' products.
Edited by: "HudlUserDOTcom" 4th Feb 2015

This is a worry for meth heads.

Go sensodyne.

Oh, and lol @ the Daily Fail and it's worshippers.

The newspaper that backed Hitler.
Edited by: "Gallus" 4th Feb 2015

friiza

Scientific journals used to claim tobacco/cocaine/LSD was good for us too.



No. They didn't. Ever.

That was newspapers too - they liked the tobacco ads in those days.

friiza

Follow the money if you want to know why they espouse such views.



Good logic - ask why this dentist talked such rubbish - because he was paid to.

I won't comment on your paranoid ramblings, so long as you're happy, that's just fine.

friiza

Not twisting anything, just making the point that even rigorous … Not twisting anything, just making the point that even rigorous scientific review processes do not guarantee these 'facts' can be disproved in time.Also NGOs & charities all get their money from somewhere- largely business or government. No difference really except they are even less elected/accountable than government. Follow the money if you want to know why they espouse such views.



Then that means nothing can ever be concluded ever because there's a chance it could be disproven. It's a cyclical argument and advancement in anything would halt.

So charities and even non profit organisations like Oxfam are all paid for by pharma or governments? I wish they were, they and the world might be a lot better off tbh. Greenpeace for example is against GMO's despite all the potential profit involved because they are paid by who and for what agenda?

Putting all that aside, I think I get your point and I somewhat agree. You should be open minded however the problem is just simply being skeptical. Instead it's far better to be critical of everything, that way you can filter out the rubbish and draw your own conclusions.
Edited by: "yrreb88" 4th Feb 2015

After government/media/scientists have all been exposed as misleading the public in the past, my problem is now automatic distrust, even if they may be truthful at this point.

Like the villagers in boy who cried wolf.

Yes I could spend time researching Greenpeace's top donors and their affiliations, but don't have the motivation. Easier to just Witter on paranoiacally

And I don't think scientific investigation into a topic should ever be 'concluded' - we just have the current theory until a better one supplants it.

OrangeAgent

Flouride is the one to avoid too, I use the … Flouride is the one to avoid too, I use the http://www.amazon.co.uk/AloeDent-Original-Aloe-Toothpaste-CO-Q-10/dp/B0013G31YM/ref=sr_1_5?s=drugstore&ie=UTF8&qid=1423067201&sr=1-5&keywords=aloedent



Don't drink water and tea then. (_;)

Fluoride is not the one to avoid for dental hygiene.

friiza

Scientific journals used to claim tobacco/cocaine/LSD was good for us too.



Oh. Which ones? Could you link them please?

I'd love to see a scientific, peer reviewed and published journal that states "cocaine is good for you".

I suspect the real context of them is very different. Take LSD for example, here is an article that is a bit of a summry of some research done: sciencedaily.com/rel…htm

At no point is there a "LSD IS GOOD FOR YOU" type comment. But rather a breakdown on their findings, issues with their own research, and areas that need further investigation. A far, far stretch from claiming that it's good for people.

What's interesting though is some drugs like LSD have the real potential to treat alcoholism and stress, but research is very thin on the ground due to the laws governing use of these substances in labs. Driven of course by media interests and the uneducated public.

So yes....link please to what you're claiming or it didn't happen.

friiza

Not twisting anything, just making the point that even rigorous … Not twisting anything, just making the point that even rigorous scientific review processes do not guarantee these 'facts' can be disproved in time.



Disproving existing scientific theories is science. What you've said it *literally* the definition of the scientific process. The problem is, the people who harp the 'The science has been disproven' in these situations are normally the ones who 'backup' their claims with a DailyMail link.

Scientists want their work to be disproven. This is how science progresses. But that proof has to be of the same standard as the original scientific claim.

Anyone can be a scientist. Follow the scientific process and publish your findings on an area that interests you. Get proven wrong - that's fine. Keep doing it. Build up your understanding of an area. Get better. Still keep doing it.....then you might get a breakthrough.

Almost every single person has the ability to refute and challenge claims in the scientific community. You just have to provide evidence when you do. If your view on a subject is so different to the consensus, that's fine - but examine your own view. If you don't have the evidence to back up your thought process, then perhaps consider you might be wrong?

If you're absolutely certain you're right - awesome. Publish your reasoning and findings. Make millions by inventing a new product or giving competitors the evidence they need to sell more of theirs (with you taking a nice cut).

Alternatively, sound like a conspiracy theory nutter on the internet. It's far easier and it doesn't really require any brain power.
Edited by: "nomnomnomnom" 4th Feb 2015

ssaass

My teeth became sensitive about 20 years ago. I tried Sensodyne with … My teeth became sensitive about 20 years ago. I tried Sensodyne with little success. I found Colgate Sensitive Whitening much better.NB: American Dentists do not recommend Sensodyne!

They recommend doughnuts

God I love reading peoples ludicrous conspiracy theories. What always gets me is how they think that many hundreds of people involved in these studies and there review are all complicit in covering up the facts.

One tin foil hat please!

SLS is a foaming agent. It has been replaced by SLES in many products because it has caused irritation in people with sensitive skin (it's used in shampoo, etc.). With SLES the bubbles are not as small. They do not get into the dermis as much and, therefore, do not trigger a histamine response. SLS may damage the gums and mouth but will not damage teeth.

Original Poster

bennybebop

SLS is a foaming agent. It has been replaced by SLES in many products … SLS is a foaming agent. It has been replaced by SLES in many products because it has caused irritation in people with sensitive skin (it's used in shampoo, etc.). With SLES the bubbles are not as small. They do not get into the dermis as much and, therefore, do not trigger a histamine response. SLS may damage the gums and mouth but will not damage teeth.



Gee, I love your explanation. The debate has gone way out of control! X) I must make sure I have all the quotes in place or someone else might want to have a go at me!

friiza

After government/media/scientists have all been exposed as misleading the … After government/media/scientists have all been exposed as misleading the public in the past

NO. Scientists have not ALL been exposed. The number of scientists shown to be talking falsely is minute. It's one thing to query science which is new or controversial - but in most cases, there's a huge consensus - and while details change with new discoverises (that's what science is) there's rarely - if ever - a complete reversal.

friiza

Easier to just Witter on paranoiacally


We noticed. But talking sense gets you a better reputation than talking BS. Ask any climate change denier. They live with mirth like the Queen lives with the smell of paint.

friiza

And I don't think scientific investigation into a topic should ever be … And I don't think scientific investigation into a topic should ever be 'concluded' - we just have the current theory until a better one supplants it.


Science never is 'concluded' but while 99.99% of the evidence says one thing, you'll likely wait a long time looking silly until it's reversed. Most thoeries build on previous theories, not reverse them.

Can you give ONE example of when science has been been proved wrong - not just in a detail, but in the main theory?



Edited by: "Quadrille" 4th Feb 2015

friiza

After government/media/scientists have all been exposed as misleading … After government/media/scientists have all been exposed as misleading the public in the past

friiza

Easier to just Witter on paranoiacally

friiza

And I don't think scientific investigation into a topic should ever be … And I don't think scientific investigation into a topic should ever be 'concluded' - we just have the current theory until a better one supplants it.



I'm on your side here but of course science is proven wrong all the time. Scientist thought the earth was flat.......

nomnomnomnom

I understand now that writing all this in response to you being paranoid … I understand now that writing all this in response to you being paranoid about some toothpaste is probably going to be lost on you. I expect you to read over this and either not understand it, or get annoyed that it doesn't fit your views. But before you respond, I just ask you to do one thing: Spend an hour researching SLS using only peer reviewed sources and bring the evidence of harm back here for us all to see. Not newspaper articles, blogs, or any other scaremongering website. But from real scientific based papers - ones that you, me or anyone else can review and write a counter scientific response to.



This with knobs on. Brilliant post.

aym280

The debate has gone way out of control!



No, it hasn't. It's been explained to you very cogently why the scaremongering in your OP is just plain wrong.

MassiveBongFace

I'm on your side here but of course science is proven wrong all the time. … I'm on your side here but of course science is proven wrong all the time. Scientist thought the earth was flat.......


Actually, scientists are NOT being proved wrong all the time. They are occasionally, but rarely in matters of importance - generally science fills in gaps and takes us forward; these days, scientists often identify the gaps and leave room for the next step: Einstein being a classic example, Hawking another.

Scientific hypotheses are more often wrong; but that's the nature of a hypothesis.

The Flat Earth thing is an interesting example, but not exactly fair. It was tradition and the church that stuck to old beliefs; scientists 'went along' as the alternative was to risk burning as a heretic. Once the truth was shown - by science, and eventually accepted by the church, the consensus was clear. In fact, it had been known for centuries before Galileo that the Earth was round and orbited the sun, but the Church was science's sponsor in those days.

I'll bet you can't find a modern example - or an example where, without political / religious overtones, science was flat wrong.

Often incomplete; often wrong on the minutiae (usually explained by lack of electron microscopes etc). But seriously wrong? Not so much.

I think it's worth separating scientists from science; science (ie peer reviewed advances) is rarely wrong; scientists - human beings open to pressure - more so; but still pretty uncommon.

I'll give you one lovely example: a scientist published a paper in an obscure journal, which sought to prove that a propensity to lung cancer caused a desire to smoke (really! 1950s). It was soon shown that (a) it was bunk and (b) his work was generously funded by Rothmans. Just as climate change deniers are generously funded by Fox News. But that's not what I call science



Edited by: "Quadrille" 4th Feb 2015

Original Poster

ceres

No, it hasn't. It's been explained to you very cogently why the … No, it hasn't. It's been explained to you very cogently why the scaremongering in your OP is just plain wrong.



Health & Safety

As noted in a series of 1970s peer-reviewed studies listed in the National Library of Medicine's Hazardous Substances Database, SLS has been found to be irritating to the skin and eyes and can even produce allergic reactions. In response to these problems with SLS, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), an independent organization that reviews the safety of ingredients, stated in a press document that SLS posed less of a hazard in rinse-off formulations, but should be used in concentrations less than 1% for leave-on products.

Environmental Effects

SLS is not expected to bioaccumulate or persist in the environment, which is a good thing, but it is known to be toxic to aquatic organisms as noted in the International Chemical Safety Card (ICSC) Database. (For a long list of the organisms it can affect, check out the eco-toxicity effects link for SLS in the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Pesticides Database.) So, considering it's getting rinsed down our drains from several personal care and cleaning products we use everyday all over the world, this is something to consider.

So there, is that cogent enough!? Some people with *>&^% pretensions trying to claim they know all. With all the vested interests and some people with blinkered views, the jury is still out! If you're so intelligent, you won't be poring over this website ... to ride roughshod over people!


Edited by: "aym280" 4th Feb 2015
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text