The Brazilian Blowout Hoax, Epilogue: What It Means To All of Us by Lawrence Meyers 25 Nov 2011 post a comment Share This: [caption id="attachment_378272" align="aligncenter" width="220" caption="SAFE. End of story."] [/caption] Please read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 [Editor: Please link to each] Contrary to recent media reports, the Brazilian Blowout hair treatment is safe for use. Here is a review of all the studies done on Brazilian Blowout. Oregon OSHA: Pass Federal OSHA: Pass Health Sciences Associates: Pass Dr. James Haw - USC: Pass FDA: Conducted no studies ChemRisk: Too much product used = faulty study Brazilian Blowout passed every single properly performed study for both state and federal short-term and long-term exposure limits, known as the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL - an 8-hour time-weighted average) and Short-Term Exposure Limit (STEL - a 15 minute exposure measurement). So why the witch hunt on Brazilian Blowout? The answers are simple: 1) Government Bias As described in Part 1 [Editor: Please link], Oregon OSHA is guilty of : Equating methylene glycol with formaldehyde in contradiction of all accepted scientific nomenclature methods. Doing so allowed them to... Claim extremely high levels of formaldehyde in the product. Ideological bias, as at least one scientist who authored the study aligns himself with a hardcore Liberal Senator known as an environmental activist. Editorializing what should be a neutral scientific report, thus demonstrating its own bias. Deliberately taking samples longer than 15 minutes and applying those results to 15 minute periods. Issuing a false and misleading press release that did not report the product actually passed the PEL and STEL tests. As described in Part 2 [Editor: Please link], Federal OSHA is guilty of: Collecting a 35 minute air sample and reporting it as a 15 minute sample. Negligently allowing that sample to be included in their analysis. Using that faulty sample to declare the product unsafe. Issuing a false and misleading press release that did not report that the product actually passed all PEL and STEL tests. As described in Part 3 [Editor: Please link], Rep. Earl Blumenauer is guilty of: Not performing his own due diligence to verify Oregon OSHA's or OSHA's results. Failing to properly consider other exculpatory studies Asking the FDA to ban a safe product Issuing a false and misleading press release that declared a safe product to be unsafe. [caption id="attachment_378260" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption=""Shall I regulate this, too?""][/caption] Also as described in Part 3, the FDA is guilty of: Relying on Oregon OSHA's and OSHA's faulty results. Not performing its own tests. Caving to political pressure from Rep. Blumenauer Ignoring its own chemical nomenclature methods that distinguish methylene glycol from formaldyhyde. Issuing a warning letter for a safe product Issuing a false and misleading press report that a safe product is unsafe. Lesson: Once you get dragged into the government regulatory labyrinth, you're screwed. The government, in its zeal to "protect citizens", has no obligation to engage in an honest assessment of your case. Even worse, they will tar and feather you publicly, either by design or incompetence. In the case of Oregon OSHA, it appears to this reporter to be entirely by design. In the case of OSHA, it appears to be incompetence at best, and withi malicious intent at worst. A government regulatory agency cannot, by definition, create anything. It can, at best, only determine that a business is "in compliance" - a neutral stance. All other scenarios are negative for a business. In other words, all government can do is destroy. In this case, a business is, at best, being destroyed by incompetence and, at worst, maliciously. The company has no legal recourse whatsoever, and the regulatory bodies have no accountability whatsoever. Do we need regulatory authorities? Yes -- for blatantly egregious violations. None exists here. Yet by the same token, we need a check and balance on a regulatory entity's mistakes (at best) and ideological bias that has intent to harm (at worst). 2) Media Bias As I've proven through this series, the media has trumpeted every negative aspect of this story. They have paid no substantive attention to the company's side of the story at all. At best, this is sloppy journalism -- in which media outlets deliberately focus on fear to sell newspapers and boost ratings. At worst, this is yet another example of the media siding with Leftist interests and big government -- just like the endless examples of the same exposed at BigJournalism.com for the past two years. Again, looking at the big picture, media coverage like this serves nobody. All it does is destroy, and facilitates the government's purpose to do the same. Bottom Line The Brazilian Blowout company, GIB LLC, is a small business. If they get hurt, so do their employees. Stylists, who enjoy substantial revenue from these expensive treatments, may have lost clients and income during a terrible recession. Clients lose whatever substantial personal benefits they receive from the product should they be scared away from it -- and they must be substantial as the product is so popular. The Brazilian Blowout product is safe for use by clients. The Brazilian Blowout product is safe for use by stylists. Ignore the government. Ignore the media. Get your hair straightened.