Beauty

[caninefitchi]

---

@HomeShoppingLover87 wrote:

@Tinkrbl44 I didn't give her the title. And she actually is a scientist, so it's not totally bogus to take her "teachings" seriously, at least compared to someone who thinks every essential oil is good for the skin just because it's natural (when copious amounts of research, not at all related to Paula, confirm that certain plants and oils are horrible for the skin). 

---

I have a copious amount of books that extol the virtues of essential oils and the like. Not one doesn't advise to do a patch test in case you are allergic. There are a huge number of oils available, varying degrees of their quality. They do not deserve to be, nor should be lumped together as one ingredient/component. 

[HappyDaze]

---

@caninefitchi wrote:

---

@HomeShoppingLover87 wrote:

@Tinkrbl44 I didn't give her the title. And she actually is a scientist, so it's not totally bogus to take her "teachings" seriously, at least compared to someone who thinks every essential oil is good for the skin just because it's natural (when copious amounts of research, not at all related to Paula, confirm that certain plants and oils are horrible for the skin). 

---

I have a copious amount of books that extol the virtues of essential oils and the like. Not one doesn't advise to do a patch test in case you are allergic. There are a huge number of oils available, varying degrees of their quality. They do not deserve to be, nor should be lumped together as one ingredient/component. 

---

She doesn't. And she is basing her statements regarding the ones that aren't good for you skin or problematic on scientific studies, not opinon or speculation.

[caninefitchi]

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

---

@caninefitchi wrote:

---

@HomeShoppingLover87 wrote:

@Tinkrbl44 I didn't give her the title. And she actually is a scientist, so it's not totally bogus to take her "teachings" seriously, at least compared to someone who thinks every essential oil is good for the skin just because it's natural (when copious amounts of research, not at all related to Paula, confirm that certain plants and oils are horrible for the skin). 

---

I have a copious amount of books that extol the virtues of essential oils and the like. Not one doesn't advise to do a patch test in case you are allergic. There are a huge number of oils available, varying degrees of their quality. They do not deserve to be, nor should be lumped together as one ingredient/component. 

---

She doesn't. And she is basing her statements regarding the ones that aren't good for you skin or problematic on scientific studies, not opinon or speculation.

---

She bases her opinion on scientific studies that she finds relevant. Others have refuted those studies. It may come down to whether one is a fan of essential oils or not. I am a fan of them. 

[GingerPeach]

Don't forget that even if someone can successfully use an essential oil now with no problems, that same person MAY develop an allergic reaction to it a few years down the line.

Not everyone reacts the same way, or at the same time.

[caninefitchi]

---

@GingerPeach wrote:

Don't forget that even if someone can successfully use an essential oil now with no problems, that same person MAY develop an allergic reaction to it a few years down the line.

Not everyone reacts the same way, or at the same time.

---

Couldn't that be said of many ingredients?

[HappyDaze]

---

@caninefitchi wrote:

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

---

@caninefitchi wrote:

---

@HomeShoppingLover87 wrote:

@Tinkrbl44 I didn't give her the title. And she actually is a scientist, so it's not totally bogus to take her "teachings" seriously, at least compared to someone who thinks every essential oil is good for the skin just because it's natural (when copious amounts of research, not at all related to Paula, confirm that certain plants and oils are horrible for the skin). 

---

I have a copious amount of books that extol the virtues of essential oils and the like. Not one doesn't advise to do a patch test in case you are allergic. There are a huge number of oils available, varying degrees of their quality. They do not deserve to be, nor should be lumped together as one ingredient/component. 

---

She doesn't. And she is basing her statements regarding the ones that aren't good for you skin or problematic on scientific studies, not opinon or speculation.

---

She bases her opinion on scientific studies that she finds relevant. Others have refuted those studies. It may come down to whether one is a fan of essential oils or not. I am a fan of them. 

---

Ahh I see, now it makes sense. I won't continue this discussion with you since it is clear you are going to defend your position regardless of what overwhelming there may or may not be to refute what you say because you are a fan of essential oils and will continue to use them. Your choice, certainly.

[caninefitchi]

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

---

@caninefitchi wrote:

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

---

@caninefitchi wrote:

---

@HomeShoppingLover87 wrote:

@Tinkrbl44 I didn't give her the title. And she actually is a scientist, so it's not totally bogus to take her "teachings" seriously, at least compared to someone who thinks every essential oil is good for the skin just because it's natural (when copious amounts of research, not at all related to Paula, confirm that certain plants and oils are horrible for the skin). 

---

I have a copious amount of books that extol the virtues of essential oils and the like. Not one doesn't advise to do a patch test in case you are allergic. There are a huge number of oils available, varying degrees of their quality. They do not deserve to be, nor should be lumped together as one ingredient/component. 

---

She doesn't. And she is basing her statements regarding the ones that aren't good for you skin or problematic on scientific studies, not opinon or speculation.

---

She bases her opinion on scientific studies that she finds relevant. Others have refuted those studies. It may come down to whether one is a fan of essential oils or not. I am a fan of them. 

---

Ahh I see, now it makes sense. I won't continue this discussion with you since it is clear you are going to defend your position regardless of what overwhelming there may or may not be to refute what you say because you are a fan of essential oils and will continue to use them. Your choice, certainly.

---

I'm puzzled. You are discontinuing a discussion because we have a difference of opinion? I mean that's fine, your call. Would you expect me to discontinue using something I enjoy and have studied up on because you disagree with their use? 

Besides, if I'm wrong, I age ten years in five and you have the last laugh...

[wilma]

Just because the Q is selling a few of Paula's products, I don't expect the Q to use Paula's teachings for every product they sell. They sell a variety of products to interest lots of people.

IMO Paula's research team makes some good points that seemed to be based on good scientific information. I check her reviews before buying most of my skin care, but that doesn't mean I won't buy and try something that she doesn't like. I don't feel the need to use her research to buy makeup products.  I usually buy those based on recommendations here or ads.

[Jacie]

I think at one point, years ago, I truly valued her thoughts and research. Not so much now that she has her own line of products. I don't think she can remain objective when selling her own, kind of like giving yourself a best answer check on the boards!