Brain/Skull Scarring

[Chaosbutterfly]

Things like progesterone and the patch are transdermal. They're formulated and designed for the user to apply that stuff to the skin and for the stuff to get past the epidermis to the blood vessels below.

Relaxers aren't even meant to touch the skin, so you really can't compare them to medications administered through the skin.

Turning to relaxer alone, I know that the scalp tends to be highly vascular (scalp wounds bleed like crazy) but even with that, I highly doubt that any gets into the blood. If you base and process it correctly, relaxer shouldn't even be touching your scalp. And any that may seep in through the follicles is negligible, and definitely would not cause scars or your brain or skull.

I don't think that relaxers are safe....it's a caustic chemical and there's plenty that can go wrong with them. You can go bald, have burns, have permanent follicular damage, be blinded...apparently suffer major damage to your inner ear...but that's almost always due to improper use.

Everyone so quick to blame relaxer for all their problems, and no one wants to take responsibility and admit that they left it on for 50-11 minutes. Or that they used the oldest, dustiest kit on the shelf. Or that they didn't neutralize afterwards.

Oh yeah...and about the post that suggested that people put cotton in their ears to protect them from sloppy stylists, why?!
If your stylist is sloppy with relaxer, you need to tell her to calm down or get up out the chair and find a new stylist!

 

[MissYocairis]

Things like progesterone and the patch are transdermal. They're formulated and designed for the user to apply that stuff to the skin and for the stuff to get past the epidermis to the blood vessels below.

Relaxers aren't even meant to touch the skin, so you really can't compare them to medications administered through the skin.

I don't understand. Just because relaxers are not "meant to touch the skin" does not give any indication that absorbtion would not occur if the relaxer DID touch the skin. The discussion is about the potential damage this product could do if it came into sufficient contact with the scalp and how much contact is sufficient to penetrate the skin...not whether the relaxer was made for that or not. Anyone who is relaxed knows somewhere on your scalp, whether you've been fully based or not...some relaxer is going to touch your scalp directly.

Turning to relaxer alone, I know that the scalp tends to be highly vascular (scalp wounds bleed like crazy) but even with that, I highly doubt that any gets into the blood. If you base and process it correctly, relaxer shouldn't even be touching your scalp. And any that may seep in through the follicles is negligible, and definitely would not cause scars or your brain or skull.

I don't think that relaxers are safe....it's a caustic chemical and there's plenty that can go wrong with them. You can go bald, have burns, have permanent follicular damage, be blinded...apparently suffer major damage to your inner ear...but that's almost always due to improper use.

Everyone so quick to blame relaxer for all their problems, and no one wants to take responsibility and admit that they left it on for 50-11 minutes. Or that they used the oldest, dustiest kit on the shelf. Or that they didn't neutralize afterwards.

Oh yeah...and about the post that suggested that people put cotton in their ears to protect them from sloppy stylists, why?!
If your stylist is sloppy with relaxer, you need to tell her to calm down or get up out the chair and find a new stylist!

On the follicles issue, do you think that the caustic chemicals would damage the hair follicle? Not asking about seeping through the follicles...I'm asking about damaging the follicles in some way so that their function is compromised?

And...on a larger note....why do women stretch for prolonged periods (like 6 mos to a year) if allowing these caustic chemicals to come in contact with ones follicles is harmless? It seems we have hair practices that indicate we are aware of the danger but we won't admit it out loud.

 

[LadyRaider]

I am 96.5 percent sure that there is nothing life-threatening about relaxers.

But, don't count on there not being research supporting the deadliness of relaxers. The medical profession is notorious for focusing on white men's health - their symptoms, their diseases - and leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves.

 

[Kash]

I don't understand. Just because relaxers are not "meant to touch the skin" does not give any indication that absorbtion would not occur if the relaxer DID touch the skin. The discussion is about the potential damage this product could do if it came into sufficient contact with the scalp and how much contact is sufficient to penetrate the skin...not whether the relaxer was made for that or not. Anyone who is relaxed knows somewhere on your scalp, whether you've been fully based or not...some relaxer is going to touch your scalp directly.



On the follicles issue, do you think that the caustic chemicals would damage the hair follicle? Not asking about seeping through the follicles...I'm asking about damaging the follicles in some way so that their function is compromised?

And...on a larger note....why do women stretch for prolonged periods (like 6 mos to a year) if allowing these caustic chemicals to come in contact with ones follicles is harmless? It seems we have hair practices that indicate we are aware of the danger but we won't admit it out loud.[/QUOTE]

 

[MissYocairis]

I am 96.5 percent sure that there is nothing life-threatening about relaxers.

But, don't count on there not being research supporting the deadliness of relaxers. The medical profession is notorious for focusing on white men's health - their symptoms, their diseases - and leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves.

Do you think there might be something threatening to hair growth or the condition of the hair follicles that is a direct result of the long term use of relaxers?

 

[gymfreak336]

Progestrone is a HORMONE....Very different.

 

[taz007]

...................................................

 

[LadyRaider]

Do you think there might be something threatening to hair growth or the condition of the hair follicles that is a direct result of the long term use of relaxers?

I don't know. I thought the main reason people stretch is to prevent overlap on the hair that was already relaxed, not because they thought it'd be damaging to the new growth.

When I started getting relaxers more often (and it wasn't even that often... like every 2.5 to 3 months) my hair thinned out. Something was going on.

 

[gymfreak336]

How is this different from medical/chemical topical creams? For instance, Progesterone cream is administered by just rubbing into the skin and it makes its way into your bloodstream. And, what about the patch?

Is the difference between these sorts of medications and relaxers just the amount of TIME that the product has contact with skin/scalp? I'm just wondering how we actually know that the relaxer doesn't have time to breach those layers and get into the bloodstream. There have been no toxicology studies published that illustrate that theory.

It's just us taking the word of the FDA and Softsheen Carson 'nem. Which, for cosmetics is a voluntary organization. The FDA does not require premarket approval on cosmetic products. You can put your relaxer on the market and never register with them.

And, even if a relaxer is registered with the FDA, they are not subject to testing unless there has been a series of complaints and they decide to do a plant inspection. Since when are the FDA and Soft Sheen Carson 'nem sufficiently concerned with the healthy hair growth for black women over profits and commerce?

Where are the toxicological studies? I always found it "odd" that relaxers are supposedly safe during pregnancy. How so? Where's the proof on that?

I guess my point is, just like there are no studies proving the theory of the "green cap", there are also none that show the effects of long-term relaxer use on the scalp, hair follicles, and/or the human body in general and there is very little regulation in place for the marketing of products that contain either sodium hydroxide or guanidine hydroxide.

And, since there are no studies supporting or refuting either position, then neither position can be ruled out.

First off, hormone patches are just that, hormones...Hormones are a whole different ball park. Hormones are able to help manipulate the cell membrane and its intergral proteins for entrance to the cell. Hormones have biological signalling abilities. Sodium hydroxide doesn't. Plus hormones are fat soluable, hence why patches work.

When cells are breached by a chemical, apoptois occures. The cell is lysised and it dies. Thats it. Especially when we are talking about chemicals that are not carcinogens or zenoestrogens, or other endrocrine disruptors.

Relaxers have nothing to do with a fetus. If you want to talk about all of the other things women should avoid when pregnant and they don't really talk about as much then we can have a different conversation. Most of the risk for birth defects happens before a woman even knows she is pregnant and the things that could interfere with that developmental process are more internal than anything else.

Relaxers don't enter your blood stream. That would be like saying washing with hand soap every day would allow those chemicals to enter your blood steam. Or holding a tylenol in your hands for 20 minutes would allow it to enter your bloodsteam. If relaxers could enter your blood stream, we would have a whole bunch of dead women because it would send your blood carbonate buffering system into over drive. We would all be hanging out with alkalosis.

The FDA requires that beauty products be labeled correctly with correct ingredients and amount. The FDA stands for the Food and Drug administration so of cource the FDA woudn't regulate a relaxer or mascara. Now the only time the have any additional say so is when an active ingredient is considered a drug. The CIR reviews beauty products and publishes their findings in their own scientific journal. The CIR was established with the support of the FDA.

 

[Amber_moon]

Yeah... and Im still waiting for the photos. Every one has heard the story... still no poof photos....

 

[MissYocairis]

First off, hormone patches are just that, hormones...Hormones are a whole different ball park. Hormones are able to help manipulate the cell membrane and its intergral proteins for entrance to the cell. Hormones have biological signalling abilities. Sodium hydroxide doesn't. Plus hormones are fat soluable, hence why patches work.

When cells are breached by a chemical, apoptois occures. The cell is lysised and it dies. Thats it. Especially when we are talking about chemicals that are not carcinogens or zenoestrogens, or other endrocrine disruptors.

Relaxers have nothing to do with a fetus. If you want to talk about all of the other things women should avoid when pregnant and they don't really talk about as much then we can have a different conversation. Most of the risk for birth defects happens before a woman even knows she is pregnant and the things that could interfere with that developmental process are more internal than anything else.

Relaxers don't enter your blood stream. That would be like saying washing with hand soap every day would allow those chemicals to enter your blood steam. Or holding a tylenol in your hands for 20 minutes would allow it to enter your bloodsteam. If relaxers could enter your blood stream, we would have a whole bunch of dead women because it would send your blood carbonate buffering system into over drive. We would all be hanging out with alkalosis.

The FDA requires that beauty products be labeled correctly with correct ingredients and amount. The FDA stands for the Food and Drug administration so of cource the FDA woudn't regulate a relaxer or mascara. Now the only time the have any additional say so is when an active ingredient is considered a drug. The CIR reviews beauty products and publishes their findings in their own scientific journal. The CIR was established with the support of the FDA.

I appreciate the insight. You indeed are teaching me on that. My question to you is, how do we know that sodium hydroxide or guanidine hydroxide do not have properties which would allow them to breach layers of skin or to affect the bloodstream in some way if there are no studies on it?

I'm just wondering.

Also, what is your take on sodium hydroxide or guanidine hydroxide compromising the healthy hair follicle? Is this possible? Or is exposure too short? In your opinion, how long does exposure have to be?

 

[Chaosbutterfly]

I don't understand. Just because relaxers are not "meant to touch the skin" does not give any indication that absorbtion would not occur if the relaxer DID touch the skin. The discussion is about the potential damage this product could do if it came into sufficient contact with the scalp and how much contact is sufficient to penetrate the skin...not whether the relaxer was made for that or not. Anyone who is relaxed knows somewhere on your scalp, whether you've been fully based or not...some relaxer is going to touch your scalp directly.



On the follicles issue, do you think that the caustic chemicals would damage the hair follicle? Not asking about seeping through the follicles...I'm asking about damaging the follicles in some way so that their function is compromised?

And...on a larger note....why do women stretch for prolonged periods (like 6 mos to a year) if allowing these caustic chemicals to come in contact with ones follicles is harmless? It seems we have hair practices that indicate we are aware of the danger but we won't admit it out loud.

I'm just saying that you can't compare progesterone with relaxer.
I don't know about the absorption rates of relaxer, but I do know that it won't be on the same level as progesterone or something like nicotine or birth control patches, especially because relaxer doesn't work like that. The others absorb, get into the bloodstream, do their thang, everything is dandy.

Relaxer...consumes. It's a different mechanism with different results. They aren't comparable.

No, I do not think that relaxer permanently alters follicles, so that they stop producing as much hair. I think that slower hair growth over time can be attributed more to age, and to some of the inherent differences in people's hair.

And I can't answer for anyone else, but I stretch to prevent overlapping, thinning, to save money, and because I am lazy. The more new growth there is, the less likely the stylist will put relaxer on my already relaxed hair, because the distinction will be clearer between the two textures. And intuitively, I want to limit how often I place such chemicals on my head.

But I am truly not scared that relaxers are killing my follicles, turning tissue in my body into green foam, eating through my skull, or making lesions on my brain. I think I'd notice if any of that stuff was happening.

 

[gymfreak336]

I appreciate the insight. You indeed are teaching me on that. My question to you is, how do we know that sodium hydroxide or guanidine hydroxide do not have properties which would allow them to breach layers of skin or to affect the bloodstream in some way if there are no studies on it?

I'm just wondering.

Also, what is your take on sodium hydroxide or guanidine hydroxide compromising the healthy hair follicle? Is this possible? Or is exposure too short? In your opinion, how long does exposure have to be?

Because their structure doesn't mimic any other compounds that can. Sodium hydroxide really isn't a major complex chemical, its just a caustic base. No different that baking soda. Thats really it. Plus, it isn't an organic molecule. All hormones and other chemicals our body uses for signaling and other biological functions are since we are organic beings. How do we know how sodium hydroxide acts on skin, because we have done tests before. All chemicals used in manufacturing have to have data sheets that go over the different levels of the chemical and dangers at each one. That is one way they decide what levels to be used in what ever application. I mean, sodium hydroxide can be used as gastric medication at the right concentration and is used in production of certain grain products.

The big thing right now in science and medicine is the effects of environmental toxins and endrocrine disruptors in products. This is where a lot of the paraben talk comes in since parabens mimic certain natural hormones and similar compounds in composition and action. This is why many people want their products to be paraben free. Some of the chemicals have similar molecular structure but have one or two differnent enatiomers that have the potential to disrupt some of our natural signaling processes.

 

[UrbainChic]

I think the only thing relaxers can be guaranteed to do is damage the tissue it touches if on for too long ( chemical burn)-- and we all know that for experience.

As far as crossing the blood brain barrier etc, that is probably not the case, and I would wager that any absorption through the skin is probably hindered by actual cell damage.

Of course, I don't know for sure, no one seems to have bothered to study it, but from my basic knowledge of chemistry and how the human body works, I don't think it could enter the bloodstream and stay in the body for a prolonged period of time if it did, it is not a stable compound. Somethings do stay in the body, in fat deposits ( styrene from syrofoam) but I dont think the caustic chemicals in a relaxer do.

To me the biggest concern has always been the risk of chemical burns, also i am curious to what happens with repeated trauma to delicate tissue such as a scalp. I really think only in extreme cases could you damage the hair follicles FOREVER, but i do think its possible to accidentally traumatize the same tissue often enough that there is not enough time for it to recover. POSSIBLE not guaranteed for every relaxer user.

To say relaxers are completely safe i think is a stretch, but to say relaxers are a dangerous chemical that when used properly have few or no adverse affects is more accurate.

 

[LisaLisa1908]

If relaxers can penetrate the scalp, then EVERYTHING we put on our scalps should. Hell, we should all have a head FULL of various hair dressings, oils, moisturizers and the like.

 

[SignatureBeauty]

I agree, if it is so bad then most should just go live in a bubble,it is many chemical laden things out there that you can't avoid, I mean, food, water, vegetables,lotions, air, meats being injected. I mean really, a Relaxer is not the only thing, I mean I am sure it might have some affect on the scalp, but other than that I don't know!

 

[MissYocairis]

Great info Chaos, Gym and Urban. Thank you very much. I'm not well versed in chemistry or biology beyond basic undergrad courses and I can barely remember that stuff so your posts are helping me get a handle on what is important to know about the chemicals in relaxers and how I want to expose myself to them moving forward.

Clearly it's beneficial for us to take the relaxing process much more serious than we do.

Still sounds like we should pay attention to the fact that there are NO published studies on the effects of the prolonged use of these chemicals on people. *shrugs*

 

[MissYocairis]

If relaxers can penetrate the scalp, then EVERYTHING we put on our scalps should. Hell, we should all have a head FULL of various hair dressings, oils, moisturizers and the like.

You just reminded me...lol...I posted a thread about this a while back .

Our scalps do soak up some things.

I had a migraine from using too much MTG over the course of 48 hours. I did everything to rid myself of that headache. Nothing worked. It wasn't until I washed my hair with shampoo....after a few minutes, did the pain gradually begin to subside and eventually go away.

I had done two applications of MTG over the course of less than 2 days. It was too much. Of course, the concoction was sitting there on my scalp for prolonged period and, had it been rinsed out within a few minutes, I doubt I would have had such a reaction.

 

[MissYocairis]

I agree, if it is so bad then most should just go live in a bubble,it is many chemical laden things out there that you can't avoid, I mean, food, water, vegetables,lotions, air, meats being injected. I mean really, a Relaxer is not the only thing, I mean I am sure it might have some affect on the scalp, but other than that I don't know!

Not really directed at you SB...and, again, I'm a relaxer...I just noticed this with a lot of comments in this thread...just because we are inquiring into the safety of something we already use, doesn't mean we are judging each other. I get the feeling a lot of posters are lightweight offended that someone is asking if relaxers can harm any other part of the body besides the hair. Like this is an offensive question.

I think it's a fair question and nobody is asking about lotion or soap and nobody is asking about foods. The question was about relaxers and are they safe and it seems we are overly sensitive about this question as BW who relax.

 

[gymfreak336]

Great info Chaos, Gym and Urban. Thank you very much. I'm not well versed in chemistry or biology beyond basic undergrad courses and I can barely remember that stuff so your posts are helping me get a handle on what is important to know about the chemicals in relaxers and how I want to expose myself to them moving forward.

Clearly it's beneficial for us to take the relaxing process much more serious than we do.

Still sounds like we should pay attention to the fact that there are NO published studies on the effects of the prolonged use of these chemicals on people. *shrugs*

There are studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16259506

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17507635

 

[MissYocairis]

There are studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16259506

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17507635

Niiiiiice. I'm so glad to see these. There really are so many different ways that relaxer usage could be analyzed. I'm just happy to see somebody is out there placing focus on it. Thanks Gym.

ETA: For those who don't have time to click, the first study shows there is no link between relaxer usage and pre-term births and the second shows there is no link between relaxer usage and breast cancer!

 

[Aviah]

If the psychology degree I'm doing has taught me anything, it's this:
To get a certain amount of funding from the government/ official bodies, there usually had to be a certain amount of "adhereance" to the paradigms of the scientific day. Now to get a certain amount of money to carry out widescale reasearch like this, which contains the potential to undermine a staple of a multi-billion dollar industry, the odds are not in your favor.

Secondly if you privately fund it, and try to get it published, because of the aforementioned reasons it may not make it to the published articles. Much less to be peer reviewed.

As mentioned before the FDA has allowed a lot of crap to get through to the public, so there's not a lot of trust in them for me. Its been proven ad nauseum that cigarettes cause cancer and other major problems, yet they're still on sale. Why? Money.

Research like this would be tough to isolate from other factors anyway (i.e. do these women smoke, drink excessively, etc etc that might be the cause of the brain scarring)

I'm not saying this is true, but I think its best to be a little more sure or clued up on the stuff we use on ourselves. Fair enough there are many little tihngs we cannot all but weed out, but there are blatant ones that stare us in the face. With that said, those hellbent on relaxing will continue to do so, regardless on if it was medically, scientifically, etc etc proven.

I could be wrong, but personally, thats just my 2 cents.

 

[MonPetite]

This thread, which is full of excellent information, shows the importance accurate information about hair care and hair care products.

As an aside, thank you Gym for your contributions to this thread. Very enlightening.

 

[Vintageglam]

Not to over simplify things but to provide an anlogy....

If our brains were really that penetrable can you imagine the water logging we would be subject to every time it rained.

I just think that our bodies are better built to encompass these things.

 

[LadyRaider]

I'm with Aviah on the FDA thing. I don't trust them as far as I could throw them.

well nevermind. I doubt sincerely that any harm comes from relaxing your hair other than what we know about.

 

[lluvyanna]

wht scares me is that what if this skull scarring is a serious condition in AA women and they are writing it off as relaxer damaged! to me thats wrong just bcus ur race they assume its from something u did. what if that lady didnt use a perm or relaxer at all or not eve alot. then thats saying something. they should look at health emergencies with an open mind and not assume just bcus ur black ur reckless. thats just my opinion

 

[MissLawyerLady]

I relax and I fully acknowledge the harm that improper chemical use can cause. However, I think the risk of brain damage/harm is far greater from using my cell phone than from using a relaxer.

 

[Jewell]

I would have to see the autopsy report and pics, as others have said. I do believe that these chemicals affect the body in some way, but not sure to what extent unless I see some hardcore medical studies/journals spitting out real evidence about it, and not just hear-say from a hospital worker. And, how does the physician who made the comment know that the skull damage/brain scarring is from relaxer use and not something else (i.e. disease/genetic malformation)? I mean, did he know what the lady was putting in her hair throughout her life, or even if it was due to relaxer and not hair dye, etc.? When he/she said "lots of Black women," that made it turn into a generalization for me, with no hard evidence to support the statement/argument. There are too many variables here. I wouldn't believe it.

The person's statement turning into a generalization is best equated here: that's like me standing in on an autopsy of an adult White male, examining his notedly abnormally small testicles, and saying, "Yeah, his balls are small cuz all these White guys use anabolic steroids for performance and body building." Where is the scientific evidence to support that? How do I know it's not due to some other etiology at work on or in the body?

Oh yeah: I'm a former nursing student and have extensive study in biology, anatomy/physiology, medicine, and other pertinent subjects, so I have knowledge about these things; future Ph.D student in Health Science.

 

[lilsparkle825]

Great thread.

Gym, as the proud owner of a degree in biology and future med school student, your posts get me excited. I miss my upper-level bio classes, and I love how my brain feels all tingly seeing words like "enantiomer" and clicking on those PubMed links!

Carry on, ladies. LOL

 

[longnstrong]

I'm an RN....not possible. That is all.