Skin Care and Treatments of Melbourne Dermatology - Only Use Organic or Natural Skin Care

86,200+ expert documents for the skincare aficionado.

Home

Account Login/View Cart/Checkout

Perennial / Wisdoms

UV Exposure
Aging Skin and Mature Skin
Theories of Aging
Antioxidants
Sunscreens

Selected Skin Care

Avene
Dibi
Glytone
Heliocare
Kinerase
Kinerase PhotoFacials
Kinerase Pro+
La Roche Posay
MD Rx
Neostrata
OlosPrevage MD
RevaleSkin
Ti-Silc / Z-Silc
Tricomin
VitaMedica
Browse more brands.

Facial Skin Condition Treatments

Adult Acne
Dark Circles
Deep Wrinkles
Hyperpigmentation
Open Pores
Puffy Eyes
Rosacea

Body Skin Condition Treatments

Keratosis Pilaris

Skin Care Ingredients

Alpha Lipoic Acid
Arginine + Serine
Asiatic Acid
Blueberry
Caffeine
Capryloyl Salicylic Acid
Ceramides
Chlorogenic Acid
Chrysin
Coffee Berry
Hydrolyzed Hyaluronic Acid
Mexoryl
Pro-Xylane
Silymarin
Sodium Laureth Sulfate/Sulphate
Browse more ingredients.

Clinical Procedures and Topics

Aging Skin
French Skin Care
Idebenone
Klein Becker
Oxidative Stress
Perricone
Skin Structure
Stem Cells
Healthy Skin Barrier Function
Smoking
Sun Protection
Topical Vitamin C/Firming
Choices and Needs
Strivectin

Browse more clinical skincare topics.


Only Use Organic or Natural Skin Care

Only Use Organic or Natural Skin Care

Heavily-invested organic and "natural" skin care users are doggedly focused on imaginary useful differences (rather than overt commonalities) between skin care products to the point of dermatological therapeutic disablement.

Self-proclaimed and evangelical organic and natural skin care users — like the makers of home-made skincare — are almost always permanently unable to realise anything other than their own psychological reassurance.

No considerable cosmetic maintenance or improvement to skin function is ever objectively measured among users of organic and natural skin care.

On the contrary, organic and natural skin care users exhibit among the worst Visia scores for photoaging, with organic skin care users generally trumping "natural" skin care users for unnecessary permanent damage to their skin's DNA.

In spite of the evidence — which is outwardly discernible even in the absence of scientific measurement — organic and natural skin care users frequently exhibit an insulated superior mindset.

Prime among the organic and natural brands are Jurlique, Dr. Hauschka and Decleor, although many bit-players have come to pass over the years.

Organic and natural skin care manufacturers tout highly similar, more or less fearful variations on the same primitive and exclusive logic, specifically that:

  • the world is dangerous, polluted, carcinogenic, masculine and ideologically repressed;

  • the skin responds more favourably to plants than it does other substances, including its primary constituents;

  • large cosmetic companies in general exist to exploitatively poison the body, mind, soul and planet;

  • medical approaches only ever treat the symptoms and not the causes of disease, and do so out of modern ignorance and a desire to profit from placing patients in a position of perennial reliant suffering.

Accordingly, in its marketing, organic and natural skin care is not expressly about actual care of the skin as an organ — even if many of its products provide basic moisturisation — nor is it considerably protective of the environment:

  • Natural skin care manufacturers are likely to be among the most polluting of all manufacturers:

    • they transport massive quantities of unprocessed plant materials from disparate global locations for local processing;

    • they distribute many times more futile samples (typically packaged in oil-derived plastics) than they do actual retail product in a bid to force sales;

    • their skin care is comparatively inefficient, so individuals frequently amass large collections of products to force fleeting change.

  • It is biologically impossible that the skin would respond more favourably to whole plant extracts than it would its frequently declined primary constituents because human skin is demonstrably not plant matter:

    • chemicals isolated from plants (for example thymol from thyme) are another therapeutic matter, however these rarely turn up in meaningful concentrations, if at all, because organic and natural skincare users thrive on confusing therapeutic activity with poisonous processes;

    • furthermore, more topical plants than chemicals are known skin irritants — organic and natural skin care manufacturers keep their concentrations low enough to avoid change and obvious side effects, however subclinical inflammation is often seen in users of these products and their skin frequently shows general improvement on discontinuation;

      • plants are not the path of least biological interference — they affect skin by means largely unknown and rarely publicly measured;

    • irritation by plant extracts probably assists sale of natural and organic sensitive skin care products.

  • Despite its unadulterated connotations, natural skin care such as that made by Decleor features both chemical preservatives and artificial fragrance;

    • Organic skin care tends to avoid preservatives and artificial fragrance, however is characteristically bland and/or oleaginous — ensuring it remains purely superficially moisturising — and is nevertheless frequently fragranced by aromatic plant content exuding chemical substances such as citronellol, limonene and eugenol.

  • The skin care products of smaller manufacturers — be they organic, natural or neither — are rarely but nevertheless more frequently contaminated, adulterated or otherwise imperfect when compared with those of larger manufacturers;

    • Smaller manufacturers, particularly those of organic products, frequently cite "seasonal variability" as a reason for difference between batches, even if irregularities are likely due to quality control failure;

    • Although Jurlique lays claim to growing the plants used as raw materials in the production of their products, it seems unlikely that a relatively small South Australian farm could meet international demand for their products — particularly leaving biodynamic and organic farming principles intact — without assistance from other suppliers;

    • Despite the absolute purity suggested by organic skin care, Dr. Hauschka's farm sites will not have escaped some of the radioactive fallout of Chernobyl;

    • For all the generosity and decency suggested by organic skin care, in 2007 the ACCC fined Jurlique and its founders (former employees of Dr. Hauschka) 3.4 million dollars for price fixing — a practice of which Decleor is also fond;

    • Their users tend to wishfully believe otherwise, however natural and organic skin care manufacturers do not recognise aging as a biologically ameliorable (dis-eased) state.

    • Natural and organic skin care does not enhance or extend skin's health — it celebrates senescence.

Organic and natural skin care plainly does not directly treat or prevent skin conditions, let alone aging processes — it only manages ineffectual support of the psychological symptoms arising from cutaneous issues while purporting superior benefits to a public which typically presumes those benefits are directed at the skin.

If the superficially moistening emollients of organic and natural skin care are removed, only the scent of plants remains, all dressed up with nowhere to go.

Organic and natural skin care is of greater benefit to its manufacturers than it is to patients' skins.

Moreover its use is comparatively harmful where it is possible to medically implement more therapeutic, sensible, sustainable and individually relevant alternatives.

Organic and natural skin care is a means by which ignorant or disenfranchised individuals can:

  • avoid the difficult work of coming to terms with biological realities of the skin — consequently this category of skin care is popular among manic patients and beauty therapists because it requires the least sustained thought;

  • project their insecurities or grievances about the world onto psychological products as a means of self-expression;

  • find reinforcement through online skin care forums and other like-minded communities (virtual and real);

  • feel better about aging crises or global environmental concerns without actually doing something useful about them;

  • feel special about possessing knowledge or wisdom beyond what is mainstream;

  • re-live childhood;

  • show their disdain for medical, scientific and industrial professions.

Dermatology and psychiatry are again seen to intersect and the most fundamental of organic and natural skin care users typically reveal a degree of one or more of:

  • some form of psychological scarring — particularly premature loss of someone they considered to be healthy or healthy if "the modern world" hadn't intervened;

  • a history of engagement with a similarly-conditioned or brand-evangelical beauty therapist/aesthetician who has put forward a more or less frightened view of the world to an impressionable individual within the intimacy of a moisturizing facial;

  • "sleeves rolled up" and aggressive contribution with various skin care forums or other dermatologically unsound avenues — forum contribution in excess of a hundred messages is a fair marker that something probably isn't quite right;

  • having to impress upon you their (undervalued) artistic or psychic potential and beliefs.

Ultimately, organic and natural skin care are central tenets and symptoms of patients developing and maintaining among the worst skin possible.

For the purposes of preventing aging and the worsening of inflammatory disorders such as rosacea, a patient need only have followed organic or natural skin care "regimes" exclusively for a few months during their teenage years to have set permanent unnecessary deterioration in train.

Unthinking organic and natural skincare users support a proud, global, unnecessary and growing market currently (1/08) estimated to be worth around ten billion US dollars.

Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Natural/Organic Instinct Products Contain Unlisted + Mislabelled Chemicals

Natural/Organic Instinct Products Contain Unlisted + Mislabelled Chemicals - Natural Instinct Skin Care Products

A regulatory inquiry has found that Natural and Organic Instinct products, identical expect for the slight variation in name and sold for several years through health food stores and chemists, contain an array of unlisted and mislabeled chemicals.

Despite their overt and foremost marketing claims of "no sodium laureth sulphate," "petroleum by-products" or "detergents", among other purportedly beneficial omissions, the products actually contained all of these, and more.

Although many chemicals have alternate names, Natural and Organic Instinct products contained actual sodium laureth sulphate, cocamide DEA, cetrimonium chloride and fragrance/perfume despite claiming to be free of these chemicals.

For example, the company had held that it didn't use sodium laureth sulphate and formulated with "sodium salt of sulphonated laureth" as an alternative. Similarly, they passed off added product fragrance as "preservative T."

Additionally, ingredients were not listed in declining order of concentration as expected by mandatory convention, giving the impression that these relatively inexpensive products contained exceptionally high concentrations of plants.

Some advertisements had stated the products were made from 100% plant oils and herbs. Natural and Organic Instinct's spokesperson states that "100% can be used loosely" despite it being an arithmetical value.

These blatant skin "care" inventions have abused end-users who need to avoid certain ingredients due to allergies, sensitivities or ethical reasons.

The belief that "organic" and "natural skin care" is superior seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding about the source of ingredients used in products.

There is no foreign matter for inclusion into skin care products available anywhere on Earth — there are only configurations of the same matter.

Plants contain chemicals, chemicals can be extracted from plants or made synthetically from chemicals which happen to also be found in plants (among other things), and those chemicals are identical:

Natural/Organic Instinct Products Contain Unlisted + Mislabelled Chemicals

"... the roots, when soaked and powdered, release saponin, a useful soap-like substance."

Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne, South Yarra Californian Garden — July 10, 2007.


Certain skin care marketers, such as psychologist Dennis Gay who gave us Strivectin among the body of Basic Research's work, clearly understand how to manipulate apparently psychogenic concerns to their advantage.

For efficacy and even safety, it's generally best to give very small or recent personal care product manufacturers a wide berth until they prove they can provide genuine products over a long period of time.


Natural and Organic Instinct products are manufactured by Natural Products of Australia Pty Ltd in Victoria.

Related Skin Care Information, Products and Expert Discussions

Realizing The Net Increase in Hydration Latent within Glycolic Acid

A Review of Hamilton Sunscreens

Antioxidants Can Be Harmful

Ascorbic Acid vs. Ascorbyl Palmitate (2008)

Ineffective (and Irritating) Topical Vitamin C


How To Be A Skin Care Failure :

Do Nothing/Forestall Care : Only Use One Brand : Do Everything At Once / Never Complete A Single Treatment : Use Excess Antioxidants : Be a Brand Evangelist : Only Use Organic or Natural Skin Care : Impact of Beauty Therapy on Patients' Skins :


New/Notable 2016

Open Pores — Treatment and Prevention

MD Rx Melbourne Dermatology Open Pores Overnight Solution

The Sun

Radiation

Mexoryl

Pentapeptides Ineffective

Asiaticoside vs. Madecassoside for Collagen Synthesis

La Roche-Posay Redermic

Valeant Pharmaceuticals

Rainbow

Telomerase

Azelaic Acid

Bisabolol

Avena Sativa

Panthenol

Aster Family of Plants

Green Tea (Camellia Sinensis) Extract

Polyphenols

Caffeine

Oxofulleram

Salicylic Acid

Capryloyl Salicylic Acid

Open Pores

Phytosphingosine

Glycerin

Idebenone

Ascorbyl Palmitate

Kojic Acid

Algorithm for Optimal Sustained Exfoliation: Glycolic Acid

Comparison of 33 Sunscreens