Shampoo Deals & Offers

They weren't really efforts and none were taken with my psoriasis in mind. I've been vegan for nearly four years and it was when I eliminated dairy that it completely cleared up.

No it wouldn't. This is just showing how clear of a lack of grasp of these things you have is. I'll try and make this easy for you: Is Uranium on that list? No, because the IARC isn't an exclusive list of every thing that causes cancer as they state quite clearly. Again I'm pointing out a fundamentally simple concept that you just don't seem to be able to understand and yet you insist this is some sort of refutation. And besides, they literally had salted food on that list. >Not like I'm calling an association a cause. Causes are found in the the mechanism papers. Salt can cause inflammation which causes cancer. A very simple concept which you apparently have massive trouble grasping. >And who is it exactly I'm defrauding? This is some new and rare fraud I haven't heard about where the fraudster advices caution haha. Fraudulent as in claiming to know something you don't, passing yourself of as an knowledgable. >Edit: And to your edit, again the study concedes that it wasn't used for long enough periods of time, it specifically says it was used for a short period of time "during hospitalization or in day-care clinic". You're just going to cherry pick that they used a high dose, Actually, I cherry picked the lower dose they used. Liquor Carbonis is the lower concentration they can use at home. Pix lithantracis is the pretty much pure Coal Tar they use in hospitalization/day care setting, which is obviously massively higher. I could claim you cherry picked that quote because the one after it says "In contrast, liquor carbonis detergens can be used at home and therefore, most patients use these ointments for a longer period of time." But I'm pretty sure you just didn't read it. But really, you should just use the actual data on treatment course as it's in the paper as well and gives you context of what short/long means for a 30+ year follow up study. The available information showed a median use of pix lithantracis for 4 months (range 1–300 months) and of liquor carbonis detergens for 6 months (range 1–500 months). How long is treatment? Depending on formulation it's either rubbed into the body, or on the body for hours before washed off. > "The number of cases was therefore too small to reliable estimate the risk of cancer". I guess for you because they used a high enough dose, it settles it. How dose this make sense to you? Because treatments involves leaving coal tar on however much of your body is affected (Over 20% had more than 30% of their body affected), leaving it on for hours, and apparently takes an average of 4 or 6 months. Wheras washing your hair takes about 5 minutes and you wash it off pretty quickly. If pretty much every person studied both used a stronger concentrations for longer durations and over fairly long time periods then yeah, having the group further subdivided so maybe they could show the people who had 100+ months of treatment of pure coal tar had a higher risk probably isn't that relevant compared to a slightly medicated shampoo. >It's not like people are going to use this completely differently from how it was used in the study, every few days for months or years I'm not sure how long you wash your hair for and how much of your body is covered in hair but most people don't do it in the same way they'd use a dermatitis treatment. >you just bring up stuff I've already refuted Your refutations are as amazing as you are.

Associated ≠ cause. I'm not dismissing anything. It would be listed amongst other group 1 carcinogens like coal tar if it was a cause. I hope you're not going to continue linking me to more studies saying it's associated with cancer (and pretending it proves it's a cause), which I never denied. "you're assertions are completely fraudulent and without merit" That doesn't explain why you continue arguing with someone you've insulted at all, but good thing I'm not making any assertions, only pointing out what has and hasn't been said in the research and backing it up. Not like I'm calling an association a cause. And who is it exactly I'm defrauding? This is some new and rare fraud I haven't heard about where the fraudster advices caution haha. If anything I'm glad after a bit of moderation you learned not to critique someone's character and instead their argument. We're done here, get your final word in, I can only hope it's not reviving arguments that I've refuted. Edit: And to your edit, again the study concedes that it wasn't used for long enough periods of time, it specifically says it was used for a short period of time "during hospitalization or in day-care clinic". You're just going to cherry pick that they used a high dose, what does it matter if it was a high dose if it was only studied for a short duration. "The number of cases was therefore too small to reliable estimate the risk of cancer". I guess for you because they used a high enough dose, it settles it. How dose this make sense to you? It's not like people are going to use this completely differently from how it was used in the study, every few days for months or years. I've not added anything new in this post, I've said this all before, but you just bring up stuff I've already refuted.

You dismiss the epidemiological studies showing the risk, meta-analyses showing the risk, and studies showing the mechanism https://www.clinicalnutritionjournal.com/article/S0261-5614(12)00005-2/fulltext >Dietary salt intake was directly associated with risk of gastric cancer in prospective population studies, with progressively increasing risk across consumption levels. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682234/ >Based on the considerable evidence from ecological, case-control and cohort studies worldwide and the mechanistic plausibility, limitation on salt and salted food consumption is a practical strategy for preventing gastric cancer. Apparently, the above is not a possible risk for salt, and can be completely dismissed. >The rationale behind why you need to take into account a possible risk in using it "The number of cases was therefore too small to reliable estimate the risk of cancer after different levels of coal tar exposure. The information on duration of exposure showed that patients were treated with coal tar for a relatively short period of time. This is consistent with our experience from daily practice in which pix lithantracis is mainly used during hospitalization or in day-care clinic. But for you this is worrying... from the paper, their formulation is >Medical pix lithantracis is produced by mixing two-thirds of pitch of high-temperature sources with one-third of tar oils. Liquor carbonis detergens is obtained by extraction of 20 g pix lithantracis with 100 ml alcohol and addition of 5 g polysorbate. 20g/100ml for Liquor carbonis detergens is ~ 10x higher than T-Gels formulation in the lightest dose they used. So does it really matter than they didn't estimate if different levels (which were all massively higher than T-Gel. > I don't even know why you're having any dialogue with me Just pointing out why your assertions are completely fraudulent and without merit.

Literally proving my point. None of your links show "salt cases cancer". As I've said, all they can say is it is linked to it. Correlation does not mean causation. And you again linked to the same coal tar study where I already pointed out it said: "The number of cases was therefore too small to reliable estimate the risk of cancer after different levels of coal tar exposure. The information on duration of exposure showed that patients were treated with coal tar for a relatively short period of time. This is consistent with our experience from daily practice in which pix lithantracis is mainly used during hospitalization or in day-care clinic." The rationale behind why you need to take into account a possible risk in using it is in my previous post, I don't need to repeat myself. And saying what someone said wasn't clever is not being "rude and condescending", I'm criticising what someone said not their character, there is a big difference. You are directly attacking my character by accusing me of not being "bothered" reading what I linked to and "whine like a baby". You can follow up and dispute/justify a criticism on what you have said, but you can't do that when you're attacking someone's character. I don't even know why you're having any dialogue with me if to you I "can't be bothered reading" and I "whine like a baby", that says more about you.

Great spot. Stocked up for the daughter who uses shampoo like it's going out of fashion.

Thank you, have ordered a couple of shampoo and conditioners (y)

It's ok I've used it before similar smell to pantene

Thanks op (y)

Wild geese (y) (lol)