What's new
By:
Christian Community Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!

RFK Jr. Alleges Johnson & Johnson Sold Sunscreen with Carcinogens!

TCC

TCC

Well-known
countylocalnews.com

RFK Jr. Alleges Johnson & Johnson Sold Sunscreen with Carcinogens! - County Local News

RFK Jr. has vowed to hold Johnson & Johnson accountable for these claims, promising to pursue justice for consumers who may have been harmed by these
countylocalnews.com

RFK Jr.’s assertion that Johnson & Johnson is knowingly adding harmful substances to their sunscreens has raised eyebrows and ignited debate among health advocates and consumers alike. He argues that the company profits from both the sales of these carcinogenic products and the subsequent treatments for diseases caused by them. This duality raises ethical questions about corporate responsibility and consumer safety, particularly in an industry where trust is paramount.

. . . . .

Hard to tell at that level how corporate shakedowns play a role in the game of political leverage. But a bread crumb along the way perhaps. Blessings.
 
I saw talc (talcum powder) listed but didn't catch anything else. It been a while since I read the studies and MSDS but talc was a concern decades ago, possibly due to fibrous types and/or other chemicals involved (aluminum oxides, crystalline silica, other?). I do recall talc was getting a whole new IARC/NTP type carcinogen push but that was 15+ years ago. What concerns me is that talc when "wetted" in a liquid mixture does readily release dust that would be necessarily expected to be inhaled by sunscreen customers.....unless it busts off in an atomized overspray cloud if the sunscreen is a spray on type.

I'd love to see those studies but not enough to try to dig, especially since applicability to human rub or spray on sunscreen use really seems a reach to inhalation of dust into the lung; especially the deep lung. But, there sure could be more to this than that type of issue.

BUT......if ovarian cancer is involved, that's another level of a game changer and would make sense.

Of note, the California Proposition 65 labeling of carcinogens, etc way back in the 70s, 80s, etc. triggered sand box sand (not really a respirable child or adult inhalation hazard threat) and even liquor, wine and spirits to have the labeling.

I will wait and see if any of you great brother and sister sleuths get some of these details dug up for further consideration.
 
On stuff like this i try to find clusters of events, memes, and trends that float above the clouds like hot air balloons. Then I look at the balloons and see what they convey together. This is kind of how I am wired. It's not that I don't get into the miniscuel. Because as some have seen I can get a bit tecky. Or just overly comprehensive about a fortune cookie. But, because there are so many players and so many themes and so many agendas...lol...anyone who is interested I would love to see as part of the discussion. But unless it comes right out and bites me, for me, in how I am wired, it would be like walking into a room filled with all manner and types of broken glass spread out across a footballfield size airplane hanger and asking if anyone has seen my girlfriends glass or diamond like earing? That would be such a long day...lol. Blessings for those who have the skill of discernment in this area. Amen. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hol
Octinoxate and Octibenzone are mentioned in the article. Those are widely used in sunscreens. I'm allergic to both so I use mineral SPF, and I look carefully because sometimes these are added in to mineral spf anyway.

FWIW if you look at some of the French SPF sold in France and Canada (we follow their regulations) you will see some chemical SPF's that aren't sold in America to my knowledge (Mexoryl is one or it was a few years back) because those haven't yet been approved by the FDA which has been holding up the works for decades.

If I was a cynic, I'd say the FDA is protecting the interests of the American SPF industry over safety and efficacy. But I'm trying not to be cynical today!

It also depends on who you look at for the data. If they have conflicts of interest- EWG has had a few of those in the past according to a chemist I follow out of Australia. Doesn't mean they are wrong though. Just keep in mind most of these groups are funded by someone, or a group of someones.

It's like Tide and their Free and Clear product they proudly proclaim has the Eczema Foundation's seal of approval and they advertise with a cute little girl with eczema and relieved parents who proudly use Tide.

Until you talk to people with eczema, many of whom do react horribly to Tide Free and Clear. Including me. Blistering rash. Because something other than fragrance or colourant is causing trouble for a lot of people. Not everyone though.

While I do like to see the Eczema Foundations seal of approval on things, that seal was bought and paid for by companies like Proctor and Gamble's Tide or the people behind CeraVe etc.

So I sort of wonder who said it was carcinogenic, how old was that data, were the studies disproved later (like the stuff about Parabens, which was demonized based off a disproved study, and replaced by more toxic preservatives- and I think THAT was the one that EWG had a financial interest in a competitor- or the competitor was a donor- somehow EWG had a conflict of interest that didn't come out till Parabens were removed out of most products)

I'm not saying RFK is wrong, just that more information is needed and I look forward to hearing how he backs that up.

But I'm wandering off topic.

Hope it helps.
 
I have read for years that sunscreen can cause cancer and have not used any brand of sunscreen for years even here in the south and I spend at least 3 hours or more a week in the swimming pool all summer. Also I am very fair skinned and not only have I not gotten a sunburn here but no other problems either. Now I am not saying no one else should use sunscreen but I am glad to use less lab created preparations on my skin.
 
Kem said:
I have read for years that sunscreen can cause cancer and have not used any brand of sunscreen for years even here in the south and I spend at least 3 hours or more a week in the swimming pool all summer. Also I am very fair skinned and not only have I not gotten a sunburn here but no other problems either. Now I am not saying no one else should use sunscreen but I am glad to use less lab created preparations on my skin.
Click to expand...

Same here, and when I go out (especially on golf course) I go the first 9 holes without sunscreen. And I'm very fair skinned too. I may add a little later, and every so often I start to burn (arm) and slather some on. But if it's too much sun I put on a screening sleeve.

We also get our Vitamin D (best source) from the sun, and I believe if you always wear sunscreen you block this benefit.
 
worth mentioning that part of the reason "extended" breastfeeding is so stealthily discouraged by the major voices out there, is because breastmilk literally attacks and kills cancer. they pump up babies with questionable formulas instead, as early as they can. or just cut off the breastfeeding relationship by age 1. its wrong! when you breastfeed for at least 36 months, you help tremendously to prevent cancer in your baby, AND for yourself. so many women with breast cancer... so many wouldnt if they had gotten to breastfeed the way their bodies intended. theres way more to say about this, and is not to make anyone feel attacked for using formula; im speaking only of those "up there" who know the truth, promote a lie, make a profit off our ignorance, and keep us sick sick sick. those who know and profit and continue. this is not about those individuals here who chose formula or early weaning. we have been brainwashed, manipulated, putting "baby powder" on our sweet babes giving them cancer for decades. like asbestos- companies continued to produce asbestos products as long as they could get away with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top