The grandfather of a friend developed a completely painless antiseptic back in the 1950s. It was just as effective as the usual stinging kind, but it didn’t hurt. When he tried to sell it to major medicinal companies, nobody was interested, because they’d found through research that if an antiseptic didn’t sting, people thought it wasn’t working. Sometimes product behavior has to conform to what people expect it to do.
Does the fact that foaming in toothpaste is useless really warrant a massive international re-education campaign on the subject? Sorry, man, this is “who cares?” sensationalism compounded with the “OMG GM!!!” phobia that seems to be so common in Europe.
I’m a little confused by some of the reactions in this thread. If someone sells you a false bill of goods do you normally react like it’s a political ad? Jesus - “re-education campaign”, european; sensationalism; GM phobia - what the hell?
I’ll tell you what the hell: somehow, with all of us being exposed to and ingesting all of those poisons, our life expectancy keeps climbing ever upward. Must be all that toxic living, I guess!
Also, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the chemical interconnectedness of digestible and non-digestible compounds between digestible and non-digestible products is a lot closer than you think, and articles like these use that ignorance as a scare tactic. We can also someday work on the now common knowledge that microbiological life is not only everywhere, but you should be happy that it is - because wherever it’s not, is a very hazardous place and not fit for humans or any other life. Because it has either been sterilized by extreme toxic means or it’s become a noncompetitive battleground for more pathogenic organisms, which are typically outmanned and outmatched by nonpathogenic organisms like all the oogy microbes that live on your skin, and then you start getting sick.
You want to know what products found in your typical household scare me? Antibacterial hand and body soaps. Yikes, people. You need some of those little buggers, precisely for the reasons I just mentioneed, like it or not.
It’s amazing that we are living longer despite the fact that we are a nation of lard-asses who don’t exercise, for the most part. Just imagine how much longer we’d be living if we all worked out three times a week and cut down on the crap food?
But yeah, I’ve ditched the antibacterial crap. You need to be exposed to bacteria; just like you need to be exposed to lots of things. Kids who are exposed to pets an early ages are less allergic as adults, because the pet dander helped build their immune system, for example. Or a really nasty bacterial infection in hospitals is the result of antibiotics killing off the good bacteria in your gut, making room for all the bad bacteria that was always there but suppressed by the good bacteria. No more good bacteria and the bad stuff takes over and can kill you.
You what’s funny about you bringing that up? Heart transplant surgery - or any surgery - is made possible in part to the development of antiseptics. Common compounds found in antiseptics: stuff far worse than the stuff found in toothpaste that McCullough is mincing over.
Also, you’re sort of changing the argument with your turn of phrase there. There is a difference between “living healthy” and “unknowingly killing yourself slowly by poison ingestion in seemingly innocent daily products.” Toothpaste doesn’t kill you or rot your teeth. If you really think it does, I have a tinfoil fedora I can have you fitted for.
Also, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the chemical interconnectedness of digestible and non-digestible compounds between digestible and non-digestible products is a lot closer than you think, and articles like these use that ignorance as a scare tactic.
I fail to see how formaldehyde (toothpaste) and fake ice cream are things it’s a good idea to put in my mouth when they apparently serve either no purpose (toothpaste preservative for the components that don’t actually do anything) or are just there as cheaper alternatives to actual food. Antiseptics are great when you get something out of it like heart surgery; in this case, apparently the only benefit is to some company’s bottom line.
By the way, who are you arguing with? I’d love to know where I said anything like “unknowingly killing yourself slowly by poison ingestion in seemingly innocent daily products.” My concern is chiefly amazement at how the gap between presentation and actual quality.
Maybe, but that’s not the point. Reasonably well-informed people know that new carpet and car fumes aren’t exactly good for you, but toothpaste?
I’m not claiming some conspiracy on the effectiveness angle either, just surprise. Some professional-looking study published in a real journal I found pretty quickly claims that brushing without toothpaste is more effectiveness, for example. The possibility that you could do the same or better with flouride rinse and brushing without is hilarious or depressing, depending on how you look at it.