Get Your Free Bodywash Sample @ Paleoskincare

Related Stores

paleoskincare.com.au

• 

  nekro on 05/05/2015 - 17:43

  +1

  Thanks OP

• 

  tightarse on 05/05/2015 - 17:52

  This is very interesting and worth a read…

  http://www.paleoskincare.com.au/about_us

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 19:21

    +32

    Interesting in what way? It seems to largely be a manipulative, emotional story meant to scare people away from common cleaning products by appealing to peoples' fears about "chemicals". "Mummy instincts" is not a qualification.

    I find this part especially amusing:

    I tried to find statistics, case studies, market research material to provide with this article and what I found that the industry is huge and Google only really shows the high ranking pages (no surprises).

    What's the argument here? "I can't provide you with anything empirical and objective because it is all too confusing?" "In lieu of hard evidence, I offer you my anecdotal story of survival and motherhood?"

    People are free to spend their money on whatever they want, but if you think paying a premium for a product because it is 'chemical free' or 'safer than the alternative' despite no evidence to substantiate such a claim then I suggest they should be spending their money on a remedial science class.

    Another wonderfully silly point on their FAQ:

    Why do your products include water?

    This isn’t such a silly question when most of our competitors pride themselves on not using water. This is crazy to us! Why not? Water is a natural delivery >system not to mention that we can’t live without it. It helps us get the nutrients to where they need to be. We use filtered rain water always. Products >without water only provide a barrier and do not actually add moisture to the skin.

    • 

      PCHammond on 05/05/2015 - 21:05

      +2

      Agreed 100%. I have a strong science background and I make my own soap and moisturiser, but every reason I use is the complete opposite of what this lady purports to be reasons. It's actually not too hard to find empirical data on castille soap (there are actual studies on open wounds and infection using castille soap irrigation vs distilled water irrigation), and it's not too hard to explain why handmade soaps are better than the crap people get from the shops using science. It's also not hard to explain the properties of different oils etc. This lady seems like she really has no idea what she is talking about, especially in her water explanation.

      She uses tallow in her products. I find that most people do not like using animal products (fat) in their soaps. It's purely psychological (I love tallow shaving soaps). She acts as if if you don't use tallow, it's man made and horrible, when you could also use vegetable oils as well. Her products are amazingly expensive too. 10 bucks for a 100g bar? Daaaaaaaaaamn!

      • 

        BartholemewH on 06/05/2015 - 00:47

        Yes, a lot of soaps are based on vegetable oil, particularly palm oil. Part of my job is importation of soap and other amenities and the market is generally averse to using animal fats in soaps. While I personally think that her spiel is woo, I can see the massive upside in tapping into a market of woo believers and flogging them the unpopular animal based soap.

    • 

      iaijutsu on 05/05/2015 - 22:22

      +5

      Remember kids: water is the essence of wetness, and wetness is the essence of beauty.

      http://collectionofawesome.com/2012/01/02/zoolander-water-is…

    • 

      EightImmortals on 06/05/2015 - 06:43

      Meh haven't read the article but I know from experience that there is a lot of crap in the usual run of the mill bathroom products. I suspect the problem is SLS (or one of it's namesakes). When junior was still a baby he had a rash over most of his body for about 12 months. Nothing they gave us seemed to help but a week after we cleared out everything that had SLS in it the rash was gone and has never come back. He also turned into a NEW kid kid literally 2 days after we stopped buy bread that had 282 (?) in it but that's a different story. So anyway, not defending the article or the product (though I'll probably get the free sample) but just wanted to say that some of the chemicals getting around are pretty bad and do have an effect.

      (But geez, $45 for 500 ml??? )

  • 

    imtahir7 on 05/05/2015 - 19:22

    +5

    the ive got cancer and an auto immune disease raises my suspicion especially after that Belle Gibson FRAUD who said she was terminal so she could make money.

    I know i sound like a bit of an ass typing it but cant trust anyone when it comes to making a buck.

    but free is free meh.

    • 

      terrys on 05/05/2015 - 19:58

      Bit of an ass? Go for gold - you can type my comment on the "NewFrog" multi-tool post - just ask if it's suitable for mountaineering in Nepal and save my karma taking the hit…

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 20:27

      +3

      The problem is people who offer any degree of scepticism, which is entirely rational and healthy when evaluating a claim, is seen as an ass. Belle Gibson's fraud would never have reached the heights that it did if people were more sceptical of her rather extraordinary claim.

      • 

        imtahir7 on 05/05/2015 - 21:37

        the whole thing started to unravel because she promised to donate money and then didn't and not because people challenged her story. After that she came out (probably in a paid interview) that she is a fraud.

        people like her bring feed off the people who are sick and vulnerable looking for a solution and take advantage.

• 

  chrism238 on 05/05/2015 - 18:19

  +4

  How do we know that the 'Secret' ingredient is not a 'cheap overseas harmful ingredient' - after all, it's a secret?

  • 

    terrys on 05/05/2015 - 18:32

    The web site gives all the info. For anyone who wants to head down the artisanal [ I wish they'd find another word, I always pronounce it wrong] path for skin-care, these products do what it says on the skin, and ticks all the boxes. I'm happy with laundry soap, but can see the appeal of these.

    Still, I call shenanigans on "paleo" - Elephants roll in mud, warthogs roll in mud, pigs roll in mud, hippos roll in mud, people fly to Switzerland and pay a specialist for a special face pack….

    A good one for Mother's day tho. I can see it being a girls "thing" :-p

    • 

      frowny on 05/05/2015 - 19:32

      +4

      When people talk about doing things in a paleo way (eating, exercising etc), they tend to forget the average lifespan was 20 years.

      • 

        terrys on 05/05/2015 - 19:54

        +2

        They also turn their noses up at the odd juicy caterpillar or crunchy beetle too - and these are people who'll eat oysters [ but shudder if you pick your nose].

      • 

        surethang on 05/05/2015 - 20:51

        +3

        average lifespan was 20 years

        This is a myth. Hunter-gathers lived far longer lives than most crop-growing populations up until the mid 20th century when modern medicine started having its huge impact. Infant mortality was the biggest issue (and that remained the case until modern medicine), but if survived, a paleolithic person's average life expectancy was into their 50s.

        (With thanks to Mrs Sanderson, my HSC Biology teacher who somehow managed to lodge this fact into my otherwise attention-deficit brain.)

      • 

        frowny on 05/05/2015 - 21:00

        +1

        @surethang:

        But with so many infants dying, and with a much lower population, it averaged out to be about 20 odd years. Not a myth.

        Just statistics being used in the way they are meant to be.

      • 

        surethang on 05/05/2015 - 21:12

        +1

        @smileymiwo:

        Actual figures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy…

        • Paleolithic person, life expectancy at birth: 33 years (not 20), and 54 if survived infancy
        • Earliest crop growers: 20 years
        • Classical Greeks: 28
        • Medieval Britain: 30
        • Early 20th Century: 31
        • etc.

        Myth.

        Mrs Sanderson, you rock!

      • 

        frowny on 05/05/2015 - 21:21

        +1

        @surethang:

        What's 10 or so years between statisticians?

      • 

        peterpeterpumpkin on 06/05/2015 - 19:30

        @surethang:Man, I wonder if 15 year olds used to get mid-life crises.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 20:35

    "Grass Fed Organic Beef Tallow"?

    It's in their FAQs.

• 

  abadacus on 05/05/2015 - 19:13

  +1

  I got an email asking me to click a link before they send out the sample. Dodgy?

• 

  RubenM on 05/05/2015 - 19:21

  +8

  Paleo skin care is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? Next one is going to be Jurassic mobile phones.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 05/05/2015 - 20:34

    +5

    I find the entire thing quite amusing because of how ridiculous it is.

    "Our signature ingredient is a traditional ingredient made modern. All our products are based on it and we would have it no other way. We use Grass Fed Organic Beef Tallow."

    LOL. Tallow, but not ordinary tallow… luxury tallow.

  • 

    Gnostikos on 05/05/2015 - 21:20

    +6

    I think a Paleolithic skincare routine basically amounted to:

    Is your skin still on?

    Good, you're taking care of it.

    No? Better deal with that Saber-Toothed Tiger first then worry about your skincare.

• 

  em on 05/05/2015 - 19:46

  +3

  I'm answering 'no' to all of those questions. But I'll still take a free sample. It's the Ozbargain way. Cheers.

• 

  ozy on 05/05/2015 - 20:02

  SLS free?
  paraben free?
  If so, worth a shot!
  But if not, its down to washing yourself in seceret excrement as far as we know.
  Free is Free, but without knowing whats in it, i wouldnt wash my car with it!

• 

  IHateFrasierCrane on 05/05/2015 - 20:48

  +1

  Let's look at the FAQ page…

  "Paleo Skincare"

  lol is all I can say.

  "Organic Grass Fed Beef Tallow"

  Oh boy. Just reading that made me grow a beard and take photos of my meal from a cafe down a laneway. Don't bother asking where, you won't have heard of it.

  "I am lactose intolerant. Can I use Paleo Skincare?"

  wtf? Is anyone retarded enough to even consider ingesting skin care products?

  "If it is safe enough to eat, can I eat it? Yep! Get that spoon ready! Although we pride ourselves on providing food that your skin will love not your taste buds."

  Well… I stand corrected.

  And finally…

  "Why do your products include water?

  This isn’t such a silly question when most of our competitors pride themselves on not using water. This is crazy to us! Why not? Water is a natural delivery system not to mention that we can’t live without it. It helps us get the nutrients to where they need to be. We use filtered rain water always. Products without water only provide a barrier and do not actually add moisture to the skin."

  "chemical free"

  Dihydrogen Monoxide/DHMO.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 07/05/2015 - 13:04

    Oh boy. Just reading that made me grow a beard and take photos of my meal from a cafe down a laneway. Don't bother asking where, you won't have heard of it.

    My sides went into orbit. Well played.

• 

  phoenixx on 05/05/2015 - 20:54

  I'm so sick of seeing people use "Dihydrogen Monoxide" in various threads around the place…

  • 

    IHateFrasierCrane on 05/05/2015 - 20:55

    +2

    It's still a chemical. It's used to show how moronically scared people are of the word "chemical" and that it's not a bad word, and not every chemical is a bad thing.

    It has a chemical formula and structure just like everything else.

• 

  rolypoly on 05/05/2015 - 20:56

  +7

  Sounds like a crock. The product seems fine but their pitch is moronic and makes everyone stupider for reading it.

  Anything can kill you at high enough levels. Water takes 2 litres an hour and here is an extract from the WebMD entry for rosemary which they use as a preservative. (WebMD was just one of the first results that came up)

  Rosemary is POSSIBLY UNSAFE when taken by mouth in medicinal amounts. Rosemary might stimulate menstruation or affect the uterus, causing a miscarriage. Not enough is known about the safety of applying rosemary to the skin during pregnancy

  There are harmful chemicals used in products but there is no point in having no relevant credentials and then doing mediocre and unfinished research and then marketing a product based on essentially nothing.

  There are also just logical mistakes
  1. The Secret Ingredient in this product that most experts want to keep to themselves
  2. Experts use cheap overseas harmful ingredients
  3. Rather than use part of the animal that would get discarded in landfill if paleoskincare didn’t use it

  And also the continual mention of the skin literally drinking it before your eyes.
  But the product being drunk is saturated fat. So will this product increase saturated fat in our blood?

  Also the product cannot be cruelty free since they are buying tallow off farmers and increasing the value of slaughtering a cow. Giving farmers a little more incentive to slaughter a cow.

  And tallow is not even a waste product. It is a one billion dollar industry in Australia.

• 

  atasnatas on 05/05/2015 - 20:56

  +2

  The only bodywash listed on the website is the tallow bodywash. The ingredients for the plain version are as follows:

  Filtered rainwater
  Saponified Grass-fed Beef Tallow
  Australian Extra Virgin Olive Oil
  Organic Coconut Oil
  Sodium Borate

  It's made in Australia, tested only on willing people rather than animals and is free of: sulphates, detergents, petro-chemicals, artificial colours, synthetic fragrances, mineral oils and parabens. The only people it's not suitable for are those with beliefs that object to the use of animal products (such as many vegetarians and vegans), as well as those allergic to one or more of the ingredients.

  I realise terms like "autoimmune disease", "cancer" and "paleo" are all big red flags, plus the 'mum looking out for her kids' idea guilts parents for using regular products. It's by no means a good sales pitch morally, but the reason it's used so much is because it works. I've had a myriad of health problems all my life (unfortunately escalating as time has gone on) and I've been there; it's easy to get swept away by the idea that society is full of evil chemicals and this miracle product will make it all better. It's especially prevalent when you've got mothers blaming themselves for their children having asthma or ADHD, thinking they can right their wrongs by buying these alternative products. It's exploitative even when it often doesn't mean to be. I think as for the "paleo" usage (which bothers me, but I digress), it's not to be taking absolutely literally as in reverting to living like cavemen. It simply indicates the exclusion of heavily-processed, largely not understood products that weren't available 10,000 years ago. Yes, it's sensationalised; that's what society pays attention to, I'm sorry to say.

  However, that doesn't mean that these products aren't legitimately safer and better for those with sensitive skin. I think it's unfair to discredit the creator simply because studies haven't been cited. That doesn't mean they're not out there, they admitted to simply looking via Google and that's only surface-level. To get a reasonably comprehensive perspective of an issue like this requires an understanding of where to find the information needed.

  There's evidence indicating that common ingredients in the most personal care products affect people more than they realise. It's hard to quantify exactly what these ingredients do, but it's a grey area by any interpretation and that's rather frightening when you consider how widely used the ingredients are. I've just spent the last ten minutes running some widely-utilised (and long suspected of being problematic) ingredients in personal care products through Google Scholar. Take a look for yourself.

  http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00128071-200405050-…

  http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/21155623

  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.958/abstract

  http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/211095

  http://www.researchgate.net/publication/14705132_Toxicology_…

  http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/3826772

  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1046199X98…

  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2005.…

  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1994.…

  http://journals.lww.com/dermatitis/Abstract/1991/12000/A_5_Y…

  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2133.1996.…

  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0536.2003.…

  I suggest taking your business to a company that doesn't read like a "DOCTORS HATE HER!" ad, but please don't discredit the premise. It's incredibly vital that we all make our own decisions, founded on whatever evidence we can find. There will unfortunately always be fear-mongering, but most often that concern is grossly exaggerated, rather than completely unjustified.

  • 

    rolypoly on 05/05/2015 - 21:13

    +2

    The Australian standard for dermatitis is sorbolene APF or emulsifying ointment BP or aqueous cream BP or good old petroleum jelly.

    All creams and ointments do are form a layer of oil on the skin which stops moisture evaporation. The higher the ratio of oil then the more evaporation it will stop and the greasier it will feel.

    These products will not actually stop any cause such as psoriasis or allergic dermatitis. The patient would need to find out what the allergen is and stop contacting it or use a steroid cream which stops the immune response locally.

    These products generally just have an oil phase, a water phase, an emulsifier and a preservative. The ointments have no water phase. None of these have fragrances. It is generally the preservative that causes problems if any at all. Preservatives are required or else the product won't last more than a month.

    If people have skin problems the first stop should be a doctor or pharmacist not the clinique counter.

  • 

    Nonverbose on 06/05/2015 - 02:16

    +2

    tested only on willing people

    I wonder who the willing ozbargainers people are..

• 

  madrigal on 05/05/2015 - 21:17

  What harmful chemicals are in your Lavender & Goats Milk Tallow Soap that you suggest not to use it if you have a chemical sensitivity?

• 

  klownz on 05/05/2015 - 22:07

  They also use SSL V3.0 which is vulnerable to POODLE attack.

  http://www.paleoskincare.com.au/security_policy

  • 

    Jef Tino on 05/05/2015 - 22:41

    +1

    It's safe if it's Organic Paleo Poodle.

    • 

      klownz on 05/05/2015 - 23:05

      Is Poodle Tallow Paleo?

      • 

        rolypoly on 06/05/2015 - 01:00

        +2

        Toodle poodle do

      • 

        Forfiet on 06/05/2015 - 09:01

        +1

        @rolypoly: "Toodle poodle doodle do"

        FTFY

• 

  GunnerMcDagget on 06/05/2015 - 08:12

  +5

  I've been suffering from a severe case of gullibility. Throwing money at any scam product. Will this soap cure me of this gullibility?

• 

  Diji1 on 06/05/2015 - 08:39

  People will swallow anything.

  But I suppose if nincompoops will swalow the paleo diet idiocy why not, it's not like people haven't demonstrated that their rubes already right.

• 

  momov3 on 14/05/2015 - 13:10

  For donkey's years, my ancestors have been showering with non Paleo and nothing untoward happened to them. I don't see how this is going to make me live longer. The secret ingredient - does it include blood and some extract from innards of creatures!

  • 

    surethang on 25/05/2015 - 11:59

    There's plenty of good studies showing that people are adversely effected by modern ingredients. Sure, people aren't dropping dead from using a bar of soap, and of course not everyone is affected. The down sides tend to creep up on us.

    For example, Parabens and BPA are some of the better known culprits. They're xeonestrogens, which have contributed to a ~20% decrease in average male testosterone levels over the last few decades across all ages. Men just aren't what they used to be :( There's now a major surge in men, young and old, needing testosterone replacement therapy and it's getting worse. There's a reason why we a lot of these chemicals are banned from baby products.

• 

  icywind on 25/05/2015 - 11:34

  +1

  Holy crap, the comments make me feel high school all over again!! @_@

• 

  curlycee on 03/06/2015 - 18:04

  Anyone received this yet? I've had a bunch of emails from them saying it's on the way, and promo codes to buy their products.
  Interestingly, I received a sample in this month's Native Box of the Spearmint Tallow Bodywash.
  To be frank, it's pretty disgusting. It smells like bathing in roast meat juices with mint sauce.