I do not normally review talk shows, but I came across this show when they presented what I feel is an incredible twist of facts for a show that uses the term "doctor" in the title and is not a drama or comedy series. As I have much respect for those in the medical profession, I do not think this is fair to all of the good health professionals out there, and unsound medical advice can result in harm. The purpose of my review is simple: to warn others that this is probably a waste of time and that taking this advice without discussing it with your capable doctor is not advisable.
More or less, the claim was that one should not use the Magic Eraser products (white 'foam' products from 3M, Mr. Clean, and others) to clean one's skin because they can cause chemical burns and some contain formaldehyde. Instead, they recommended using concentrated lemon juice and baking soda to rub on your skin. Certainly, not using Magic Eraser products on skin is advisable...these are not skin care products and they are not marketed for that purpose. You can find them in the cleaning aisles...not the skin care aisles.
Here's the issue...the "chemical burns" they are speaking of are generally not chemical burns at all. Rather, they are generally a combination of abrasive burns and sometimes allergic reactions in the huge majority of instances (and obviously when you have an abrasive burn even mild chemicals will cause additional inflammation.) If you look at the pH of these magic eraser products, the pH is a mild base and while strong enough to cause mild chemical burns over very extended exposure to extremely delicate skin, most hand soap is a stronger basic. I may be completely wrong in my expectations, but I expect a doctor to understand the pH scale and the differences between an abrasive and a chemical burn.
Additionally, the reference to formaldehyde is either a scare tactic or just poor research. These products do not contain concentrated formalin, and the MSDS that is verified by government agencies prove this. I read this years ago and was worried about the health of those in my house...looking through the MSDS sheets, I realized that this was not the case. The formalin levels in these things are lower than is in most (healthy) air. Let me put this another way...Formaldehyde-Melamine-Sodium Bisulfite Copolymer is NOT formaldehyde, and the MSDS for the Mr. Clean product is a "1" indicating "slight health risk", and a huge portion of the cleaning products we use are rated the same or higher.
Now, it is worth noting that both 3M and Mr. Clean did NOT put proper warnings on their products when they were first released. A main mechanism of the cleaning actions of these products is through abrasion (i.e., by removing top layers of the material it is rubbed against)...and therefore, these products can cause abrasive burns on bare skin, especially on more delicate areas (like the face or arms versus the thicker skin on the base of the palms.) These products now contain more accurate warnings (both about skin and use on delicate materials that abrasive products will damage/ruin.)
Finally, recommending the usage of concentrated lemon and baking soda on skin seems like a questionable alternative given they are recommending a product that may potentially cause significant irritation, which is what the discussion is trying to avoid. They also failed to mention how citrus on skin + sun can result in severe chemical burns, and when using citrus on the skin this should not be overlooked.
A few seconds after, they discussed how there is "controversy" as to the benefit of mouthwash containing alcohol due to alcohol having the potential to act as a carcinogen. While this is partially true, the fact that they mentioned that side of the argument but completely ignored the large amount of (longitudinal) data that suggests antiseptic mouthwash is beneficial to long-term oral health concerns me greatly. That is not a one-sided argument because their is a lot of data to contradict the point they conveyed, and it is still an ongoing debate. If only one side of this argument is going to be discussed, it shouldn't be mentioned at all.
I honestly could not watch more of the show from there because I feel the way information is being presented is not fair and objective but rather one-sided. Regardless of whether it is the writers or presenters at fault, it's not fair to viewers, it's not fair to ethical doctors, and it's not sound advice that takes reputable sources into account. A show of this type (that is, a non-fiction show) needs to do more research before presenting information to ensure they are not just relaying what is on urban myth sites; otherwise someone could get hurt! So I recommend that ANY advice presented here be viewed with strong skepticism prior to accepting it as fact or of sound judgment.
More or less, the claim was that one should not use the Magic Eraser products (white 'foam' products from 3M, Mr. Clean, and others) to clean one's skin because they can cause chemical burns and some contain formaldehyde. Instead, they recommended using concentrated lemon juice and baking soda to rub on your skin. Certainly, not using Magic Eraser products on skin is advisable...these are not skin care products and they are not marketed for that purpose. You can find them in the cleaning aisles...not the skin care aisles.
Here's the issue...the "chemical burns" they are speaking of are generally not chemical burns at all. Rather, they are generally a combination of abrasive burns and sometimes allergic reactions in the huge majority of instances (and obviously when you have an abrasive burn even mild chemicals will cause additional inflammation.) If you look at the pH of these magic eraser products, the pH is a mild base and while strong enough to cause mild chemical burns over very extended exposure to extremely delicate skin, most hand soap is a stronger basic. I may be completely wrong in my expectations, but I expect a doctor to understand the pH scale and the differences between an abrasive and a chemical burn.
Additionally, the reference to formaldehyde is either a scare tactic or just poor research. These products do not contain concentrated formalin, and the MSDS that is verified by government agencies prove this. I read this years ago and was worried about the health of those in my house...looking through the MSDS sheets, I realized that this was not the case. The formalin levels in these things are lower than is in most (healthy) air. Let me put this another way...Formaldehyde-Melamine-Sodium Bisulfite Copolymer is NOT formaldehyde, and the MSDS for the Mr. Clean product is a "1" indicating "slight health risk", and a huge portion of the cleaning products we use are rated the same or higher.
Now, it is worth noting that both 3M and Mr. Clean did NOT put proper warnings on their products when they were first released. A main mechanism of the cleaning actions of these products is through abrasion (i.e., by removing top layers of the material it is rubbed against)...and therefore, these products can cause abrasive burns on bare skin, especially on more delicate areas (like the face or arms versus the thicker skin on the base of the palms.) These products now contain more accurate warnings (both about skin and use on delicate materials that abrasive products will damage/ruin.)
Finally, recommending the usage of concentrated lemon and baking soda on skin seems like a questionable alternative given they are recommending a product that may potentially cause significant irritation, which is what the discussion is trying to avoid. They also failed to mention how citrus on skin + sun can result in severe chemical burns, and when using citrus on the skin this should not be overlooked.
A few seconds after, they discussed how there is "controversy" as to the benefit of mouthwash containing alcohol due to alcohol having the potential to act as a carcinogen. While this is partially true, the fact that they mentioned that side of the argument but completely ignored the large amount of (longitudinal) data that suggests antiseptic mouthwash is beneficial to long-term oral health concerns me greatly. That is not a one-sided argument because their is a lot of data to contradict the point they conveyed, and it is still an ongoing debate. If only one side of this argument is going to be discussed, it shouldn't be mentioned at all.
I honestly could not watch more of the show from there because I feel the way information is being presented is not fair and objective but rather one-sided. Regardless of whether it is the writers or presenters at fault, it's not fair to viewers, it's not fair to ethical doctors, and it's not sound advice that takes reputable sources into account. A show of this type (that is, a non-fiction show) needs to do more research before presenting information to ensure they are not just relaying what is on urban myth sites; otherwise someone could get hurt! So I recommend that ANY advice presented here be viewed with strong skepticism prior to accepting it as fact or of sound judgment.