.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Monday, October 16, 2017

Rick Woychik, Deputy Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences {NIEHS}, gives an overview of the NIEHS highlighting the agency's new focus on genetic variability and the developmental origins of disease, followed by a lively Q&A session focused on fluoride

Your Toothpaste or Mouthwash Might Actually Be Staining Your Teeth

toothpasteNext time you go toothpaste or mouthwash shopping, make sure you avoid these ingredients!
BY BRITTANY GIBSONne of the first things that people notice about you is your smile—and your teeth. It seems that everyone strives for pearly whites (although naturally yellow teeth are actually stronger than bleached teeth) and will buy any product that promises brighter teeth. The only problem? Not all toothpastes and mouthwashes are as beneficial as you’d think. In fact, some of them may actually be staining your teeth.
“This staining is due in part to two ingredients; cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), an antibacterial, and stannous fluoride, a remineralization ingredient,” Dr. Benjamin Lawlor, DDS, Cosmetic Dentist in Portland, Maine, told Reader’s Digest“The reason why this happens is in the way the CPC kills bacteria. CPC kills bacteria and dislodges them from the tooth. As they are being swished away, they can re-adhere to the tooth or collect in areas of the mouth—usually near the gums or on a ledge. The bacteria continue to die leaving brown stains wherever they are,” Lawlor continues. “Stannous fluoride can [also] stain because it has a chemical compound which includes molecules of tin. This metal can adhere to the teeth in the right conditions and cause extrinsic staining.”
Fortunately, most toothpastes and mouthwashes have a warning on their label if they contain these chemicals. Since CPC has caused so many complaints, most manufacturers have now opted to switch out CPC for essential oils, which are proven to be just as effective as CPC. (You can also use essential oils to sleep bettercalm anxietylose weighttreat acne, and so much more.)..................

Dr Axe - Is Fluoride Bad for You? It’s Not Just in the Water

...............................The UK Department of Health still concludes, however, that the fluoridation of water, milk and salt (the latter two are not fluoridated in the U.S.) is the best and safest way to prevent dental caries. (43) This is echoed by the American Dental Association in their public marketing piece, “Fluoridation Facts.” (44)

Is fluoride bad for you?

I believe fluoride is an unnecessary chemical that should not be in public water supplies, and that it has the potential to damage your body.
Many experts have been concerned about the bioaccumulation of fluoride due to the overwhelming availability of fluoride in dental products, food, drinks and water, including a group of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) union members who have urged the EPA to change their stance on water fluoridation and a group of almost 5,000 medical professionals across several countries who have signed the Fluoride Action Network’s petition to end water fluoridation. (4546)
Because of the dangers of fluoride toxicity, the FDA began requiring a warning on all fluoride toothpastes manufactured after April 1997 to contact the nearest poison control center if the toothpaste is ingested because this “drug” may cause adverse effects. (47) Remember, toothpaste contains somewhere around 1,000 times more fluoride per volume than fluoridated water.
As I mentioned earlier, one concern held by certain people is the hazards of using silicofluorides (HSF) to fluoridate water, rather than sodium fluoride, the substance which has been used in virtually all fluoride safety research. (48) The petition listed above to remove silicofluorides from drinking water points out that fluoridated water using HSF contains 100 times more arsenic than fluoridated water using sodium fluoride at 0.7 ppm (the current standard).
Whatever the source, the ingestion of large amounts of fluoride is not good for you. While it may offer certain teeth strengthening benefits when used topically, I don’t think the benefits outweigh the very serious long-term costs.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Confounding factors - delay of teeth eruption - small number.

"We have an agenda!"

Oral Health: A key component for Kentuckians’ overall health

DentalFRANKFORT – As part of its 52 Weeks of Public Health campaign, the Kentucky Department for Public Health, within the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, is honoring the Kentucky Oral Health Program in recognition of National Dental Hygiene Month.
The Oral Health Program consists of 11 public health dental hygiene teams providing services in 28 Kentucky counties. These teams visit local schools to assess, clean and apply fluoride varnish and sealants to a child’s molars. The fluoride varnish provides protectants for six months, and the sealants protect the chewing surface for the length of the sealant, which typically protects the surface of the teeth from decay. With a deficit of dental providers in some of Kentucky’s rural communities, this program fulfills a vital need with a mission to refer every child to a local dentist.
“We are working not only with our heads and hands, but with our hearts. We have been touched by all of the children and unreal circumstances we come across,” Dr. Julie McKee, DMD, director of the DPH Oral Health Program, said in a state news release. “Our work is helping children in Kentucky - but also changing each of us for the better.”
The public health dental hygiene teams have served approximately 25,000 Kentucky children providing 175,000 preventive dental services including oral hygiene instruction, dental risk assessment, patient education, nutrition counseling, tobacco counseling, varnish and sealants. These individuals embrace the needs of local communities to assure children can grow and learn without the distraction of poor dental health. If a child is in pain or cannot eat due to poor dental health, they cannot learn and grown to become healthy, productive Kentucky citizens.
On Oct. 7, the Oral Health Program was recognized at the Kentucky Dental Hygienists’ Association Public Health Symposium for being a trailblazer in the area of public dental health. The event was a continuing education that consisted of a panel discussion centered on the important work health department hygienists do within Kentucky communities.
The Kentucky Oral Health Program works with local health departments, dental hygienists, health educators and dentists throughout the state to educate Kentuckians about the importance of oral health and its link to one’s overall health. When Kentucky established an oral health program in 1928, it was the third state in the country to have a public dental health program. One of the program’s major efforts is water fluoridation. In 1951, the city of Maysville become the first Kentucky community to fluoridate its water supply. Kentucky is a national leader with 96% of citizens having a fluoridated water.
A 2001 survey found one of three kids needed such care, a number that has increased to one out of two, he said. The survey, which screened more than 2,000 children in third and sixth grades across the state, found that 41 percent had untreated cavities and that the rate of tooth decay was much greater in Eastern Kentucky. In that region, with some of the poorest counties, more than half of third- and sixth-graders — roughly 15,100 children — had untreated cavities.And poor children tend to suffer the worst dental problems, such as infections and abscessed gums, "giving further evidence that socioeconomic status is in the strongest determinant of a child’s oral health status," the survey found.More than half the children did not have sealants, which protect teeth against cavities.

Saturday, October 14, 2017


On visiting supermarkets you see them stacked, row after row, brand name upon brand name we’re spoilt for choices… but it can indeed be quite costly when added up after a while… It’s better to choose the glass option as opposed to plastic which leaches out toxic chemicals such as Bisphenol A which could affect health when taken frequently and long-term…
I’m talking about bottled water supplies, which leads to my question, why should we have to buy bottled drinking water?
I remember as a child in the 60’s the idea of someone charging for water in bottles would have been quite laughable. To this day I still have a somewhat sinister regard for the fact that we’re being charged for water and not without reasoning: There is in fact something covertly sinister and devious going on.
Before explaining, the first thing to realize is that there are indeed a number of people who have educated themselves enough to realize that they don’t want to choose drinking tap water with fluoride and other chemical impregnations. But why should we have to choose the more expensive bottle water option and put up with the chemical treated tap water? Surely, it’s up to us to do something about this?...........................

I wouldn't advise the staring at the sun no matter how low in the sky. If you develop cataracts later in life you may regret it.

World Cavity Free Future Day: shift in global attitude needed to prevent cavities

Saturday is World Cavity Free Future Day, and dentists are using it to remind parents of the importance of keeping healthy teeth and gums.
Despite being largely preventable, dental cavities are the world’s most prolific chronic disease, and while brushing regularly and watching what we eat are the obvious solutions, the Alliance for a Cavity Free Future are taking it to the next level, looking for a global change in attitude.
“Tooth decay can be stopped, reversed, and prevented, but creating a cavity-free future will require a widespread shift in behaviour for the public, policy makers and dental professionals,” a spokesperson said.
Should we continue to put Fluoride in the drinking water?
“The aim of the awareness campaign is to engage with communities, and send a “wake-up call” to those who have the ability to make social, economic and political changes to encourage action.”
The two best known methods to prevent cavities are brushing twice a day and drinking fluoridated water, with Tamworth Regional Council leading the way with their ongoing upgrades of the existing fluoridation system at the Manilla Water Treatment Plant.
Locally, Inland Dentist Dr. Ashita Sapra said that mis-information could be doing harm to one of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) top ten sanitation recommendations.
“Despite evidence gathered over 60 years about the safety and effectiveness of adding fluoride to drinking water, people still aren’t convinced because of persistent myths, and they are only myths,” Dr Sapra said.
Down the road at Happy Smiles, dentist Astrid Hooper wants parents to not only watch what they are eating, but more importantly how often they are eating it.
“It is not about how much sugar but the frequency of sugary snacks and food,” Dr Hooper said.
“People that graze constantly over the day will have more problems than people who just have three meals a day.
“Parents need to also realise that soft drinks and juice, especially in babies bottles are a real trap – stick to milk and water only.
“Getting cavities in baby teeth can still affect how adult teeth develop.” 
Click title to go to web page to vote.

Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England?

Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water.

While previous research has suggested that there is an association between fluoride ingestion and the incidence of hypothyroidism few population level studies have been undertaken. In England approximately 10% of the population lives in areas with community fluoridation schemes and hypothyroidism prevalence can be assessed from general practice data.

This observational study examines the association between levels of fluoride in water supplies with practice level hypothyroidism prevalence. Methods: We used a cross-sectional study design using secondary data to develop binary logistic regression models of predictive factors for hypothyroidism prevalence at practice level using 2012 data on fluoride levels in drinking water, 2012/13

Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) diagnosed hypothyroidism prevalence data, 2013 General Practitioner (GP) registered patient numbers, and 2012 practice level Index of Multiple Deprivation scores 2 Findings: We found that higher levels of fluoride in drinking water provide a useful contribution for predicting prevalence of hypothyroidism. We found that practices located in the West Midlands (a wholly fluoridated area) are nearly twice as likely to report high hypothyroidism prevalence in comparison to Greater Manchester (non-fluoridated area).........................

 For full document click title

Friday, October 13, 2017

Canada - Corbella: The science is not settled on water fluoridation

Edmonton has fluoride in its drinking water. Calgary does not. Take a wild guess which of the two cities’ children have more cavities?
If you said Calgary, you’d be wrong! Chew on that for a while. Despite continuing to have fluoride in their water, kids in Edmonton have more tooth decay than Calgary kids — in their baby teeth andtheir permanent teeth, says a University of Calgary study
But, how can that be? Isn’t fluoride the wonder supplement that’s supposed to mean little kids will suffer less tooth decay? That’s what many proponents of adding fluoride to our drinking water would have you believe. They have also urged people to base their position on fluoridated water on scientific data. Finally, something we can agree on!
 A 2016 U of C study called: Measuring the short-term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children using tooth surface indices  shows that fluoride isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.
You might have guessed by the above title, that this study isn’t exactly a page turner. You also might recall news coverage on this report. Pretty much the only thing mentioned in the past about this study was how there was an increase in primary tooth decay in both Edmonton and Calgary but “the magnitude of the increase was greater in Calgary” following the cessation of fluoride. What’s curious is why reporting on the study stopped there. 
What was not widely published is that according to the very same study, the number of cavities in permanent teeth actually decreased in Calgary since fluoridation ended. You read that correctly. “For all tooth surfaces among permanent teeth, there was a statistically significant decrease in Calgary . . . which was not observed in Edmonton.” Interesting, isn’t it, that this juicy morsel from the report was never quoted?
So, let’s recap that last paragraph. Since May 2011, when fluoride was removed from Calgary’s drinking water but has remained in Edmonton’s water since 1967, there has been a “statistically significant decrease in Calgary” for all tooth surfaces among permanent teeth but the same decrease did not occur in Edmonton. Drink that in slowly. 
Consider the following conclusion: “In permanent teeth, we elsewhere (in unpublished results) reported a decrease in caries over time in both Calgary (fluoride cessation) and Edmonton (fluoride continued), which was larger and more consistent in Calgary.” The rate of improvement was better in Calgary than Edmonton.
Yet there are those who want Calgarians heading to the polls on Oct. 16 to elect only candidates who will put fluoridation back on tap in Calgary. The group Calgarians for Kids’ Health presented anecdotal evidence of kids with tooth decay on Sept. 25, that included presenting a mother who said: “I have a four-and-a-half-year-old here and her teeth are falling out because she didn’t get fluoride from the day she was born.”
There is no reason why a young child’s teeth should be falling out unless poor diet, disease, or a lack of dental care exists.
The reason why fluoride was removed from Calgary’s drinking water in 2011 was because council was being asked to upgrade the fluoride-adding equipment at Calgary’s Glenmore and Bearspaw water treatment facilities — something that was expected to cost between $3 million to $6 million. In addition, the city spent $750,000 annually in operational costs. The debate ensued and freedom of choice to not be medicated through our water supply was rightly chosen by most of council.
Alberta Liberal MLA Dr. David Swann said recently that he’s “deeply disappointed by the level of misinformation and fear-mongering surrounding fluoridation. It flies in the face of 35 years of research that fluoride water treatment is a safe and effective way to protect our dental health.”
Swann and other proponents of fluoridation are trying to claim that the science is settled. But if you actually read recent studies about fluoridation, you will see that’s not the case. A very recent University of Toronto study is linking fluoride exposure in pregnant women to lower intelligence in their children. Another meta analysis from 2012 shows 27 other reports pointing to the same potential results.
If the science has been settled for 35 years, as Swann claims, why did medical experts recommend that fluoride in Calgary’s water and across North America be reduced from one part per million to 0.7 ppm in 1998? Why in 2006 did the American Dental Association recommend that parents not prepare baby formula with fluoridated water, something that the Centers for Disease Control still recommends? How can a scientist insist on medicating people when it’s impossible to regulate the dose? 
“Collectively, the literature (including our study) indicates that the impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries is not uniformly positive or negative, but varies by time and place and sorting out the reasons for different patterns is important,” states the U of C study.
Ingesting fluoride, rather than having it topically painted or swished around teeth, has been linked to other negative health effects including impacts to the thyroid, kidneys or bones. It’s not fear mongering.
I used to be one of those dismissive proponents of fluoride until my position was ripped out by the root when I realized fluoridated water harmed my children. Many Calgarians, including my sons, have evidence of fluorosis on their teeth. It’s evident every time they smile and that makes me frown. Those chalky white blotches and streaks on their teeth are not just cosmetic. It means that their bones have been affected after fluoride was literally forced down our throats. 
Links to the studies cited in this column are embedded in Licia’s column available at CalgaryHerald.com

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Fan Newsletter

A commentary in yesterday’s Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology reveals tooth decay rates did not increase faster after fluoridation stopped in Calgary as claimed in a previously published study (McLaren, et al 2016).Chris Neurath led the team that reports McLaren’s study is scientifically inaccurate, uses incomplete data, and relies on two populations that are not similar, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
McLaren used older survey data from 6.5 years before Calgary stopped fluoridation and excluded more relevant data from 1.5 years before cessation. Including the more current data revealed that tooth decay rose in Calgary at the same rate both before and after fluoridation was stopped. Factors other than fluoridation must account for the steady increase in decay. This is confirmed by a large increase in decay in the “control” city of Edmonton, which had long-standing continuous fluoridation. Fluoridation was unable to prevent that increase in decay.
“These findings negate McLaren’s conclusion that fluoridation cessation caused an increase in decay,” says Neurath.

Additional problems with the McLaren study were noted:
  • The study design is vulnerable to confounding by caries risk factors other than fluoridation.

  • Baseline decay rates for the two cities differed substantially.

  • Other risk factors for decay were not controlled for in either Calgary orEdmonton.

  • There was low participation in the dental surveys and inadequate analysis to check whether this may have skewed results.
“Our commentary shows that McLaren’s study design is too weak to meet minimum quality criteria set up by the prestigious Cochrane Collaborative in their recent review of fluoridation effectiveness,” says Neurath.
McLaren has heavily promoted her work throughout Canada, and especially in Calgary where there have been efforts to reverse the city council’s 11 to 3 vote that stopped fluoridation in 2011.
FAN Senior Advisor Paul Connett, PhD noted “McLaren received over a million dollars in grant funding and salary from federal and provincial public health organizations whose policy is to promote fluoridation.”
Commentary co-author James Beck, MD PhD, who lives in Calgary, said “As a scientist, the seriously flawed science in the McLaren study disturbs me. Citizens should be concerned that their tax dollars have funded this biased work.”

See all FAN bulletins online

USA - Port Angeles Fluoride debate at local business group

(Port Angeles) – The debate over adding fluoride in the Port Angeles water supply went before a group of local business leaders.
The Port Angeles Business Association hosted a forum featuring for and against.
Dr. Tom Locke, who is currently Jefferson County's health officer, says adding fluoride is a safe and effective way to deal with oral health. He characterized the arguments against it as based on “fake science”.
Port Angeles had fluoride added to the water for just over a decade before stopping it earlier this year. Supporters say it has helped lower the number of cavities, especially with children in the area.
But opponents say it can cause long-term health problems, especially in older adults.
Jim Bourget is with the local group opposing fluoride called "Our Water, Our Choice".
He told the PABA says the issue is also about personal freedom

Do we need a new fluoride debate?

I think we do. Something like the good faith scientific exchange I had with Paul Connett four years ago (see Connett & Perrott, 2014 – The Fluoride Debate).
After all, there have been a number of important scientific reports since then. They may have been thrashed out (and thrash is sometimes the operative word) in one of the “anti-fluoride” or “pro-fluoride” internet silos but there has yet to be a proper discussion.
I have been trying to get one going for a while. Paul Connett is no longer interested and everyone else on the “anti-fluoride” side seems unwilling. However, Bill Osmunson who recently replaced Paul Connett as director of the Fluoride Action Network has been contributing to the discussion on several of the posts here. He seems to be the obvious choice for a discussion partner and I  asked him if he is willing to participate in another scientific exchange of the sort I had with Connett.
So far he has not responded – but as he has made some relevant critiques of several recent scientific papers in these discussion contributions I think it is relevant to bring that discussion into the formal blog posts. Otherwise, some important points will just be lost because they are buried deep in the discussion threads.
Here I respond to criticisms Bill makes of two recent studies which looked for evidence of the influence of community water fluoridation (CWF) on IQ and cognitive deficits in general. I urge Bill Osmunson to respond to my points in a format which can be presented as a blog post here........................................
  1. Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH Director, Fluoride Action Network
    I would be pleased to discuss fluoride and health.
    The topic has several streams of evidence.
    In order to make a “judgment,” we need to consider all streams of evidence, not just one. . . such as neurotoxicity, rather inclusive of all.
    A. What dosage of fluoride is beneficial . . if any?
    B. What is the range of fluoride exposure in the population without supplementation? What is the difference which should be supplemented?
    C. What government agency is charged with determining the dosage to achieve the benefit?
    D. What is the optimal tooth fluoride concentration which demonstrates a reduction in dental caries? And the serum fluoride concentration to achieve the optimal tooth fluoride concentration? And the optimal total exposure (dosage) of fluoride to achieve both the serum and tooth fluoride concentration?
    E. What quality of research will we accept as evidence of benefit?
    F. What margin of safety is acceptable?
    G. What percentage of the public harmed is acceptable?
    H. What is the measured evidence of cost savings?
    I. What are the potential risks from excess fluoride exposure and at what dosage and at what age?
    J. What are the synergistic effects of other chemicals and fluoride? For example, it appears there is a curve of “benefit” from fluoride as the concentration changes. Excess fluoride causes caries. And the caries rates change with a change in the calcium and magnesium rates in the water. If we are to adjust the chemicals in water to reduce dental caries, we need to also adjust fluoride based on calcium and magnesium concentrations.
    k. What are the genomic factors which create greater or lesser sensitivity to fluoride?
    After all, if there is little or no benefit, any potential risk or expense is unacceptable. If the benefit is significant, then greater risk to some should be considered.
    Perhaps terms should be clearly defined. For example, the term “endemic” is used for a disease or condition found “in people.” Often the term is used for communities with high fluoride exposures, water, coal, tea, etc. However, fluoride can be abundant in water, foods, air, soil, etc. When referring to water, virtually all water has some fluoride. Water fluoridation is the “adjustment” of existing or “endemic” fluoride concentration to achieve a water fluoride concentration, not an individual dosage of fluoride. Does the term “endemic” mean “found in people” or “found in the person” or “found in the community” or “found in the country?” Fluoride is found virtually everywhere. At what individual or range of dosage(s) is fluoride considered “endemic?”
    Probably more points to consider, but these are some of the streams of evidence for discussion.
  2. Thanks for agreeing to an online discussion, Bill. If you send me your response to this post, including any new arguments you wish to make, I will put it up as a separate post. Of course, I will not make any changes except for those required by formatting. I have emailed you about this.
    Look forward to a fruitful exchange of views and a good scientific discussion of the issue.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

This Doctor Had Perioral Dermatitis. Here's The Regimen That Cleared Her Skin

This Doctor Had Perioral Dermatitis. Here's The Regimen That Cleared Her Skin Hero ImageSarah Villafranco, M.D., must be doing something right because she has clear, poreless, bright, and blemish-free skin. "It wasn't always that way, though," she said. She suffered from perioral dermatitis—those persistent little bumps that never really fully form into blemishes, but disrupt the texture of the skin—and bouts of acne before achieving her flawless glow.

In aligning with her true purpose, she discovered what's right for her skin.

Dr. V used to be an emergency room doctor, most likely one of the few with a holistic bent. She'd carry lavender essential oil in her pocket to calm her rattled patients and used her aromatherapy know-how to help them with pain and trauma. Many years into her ER career, her mother was diagnosed with cancer, prompting her to rethink almost everything—especially her career as an ER doctor. Her mother was a lawyer and had worked too much, and she saw herself following in the same footsteps. It was a demanding job and also reactive. Many of her patients were averse to the idea of changing their lifestyles to prevent further emergencies. This truth wore on her conscience.

Photo: Osmia Organics
It was an innocent soap-making class that catapulted her into a study of natural perfumes, organic skin care, and of course, lots of soap-making. Inspired by a few friends who had taken the leap and her mother, who would have advised her to follow her heart, she started Osmia Organics. Through endless trial and error, here's what she's learned works well for her skin and what finally cured her perioral dermatitis:

1. A warm washcloth first thing in the morning.

"This is something my mother taught me," she said. She drenches a washcloth with hot water (not scalding), as hot as she can stand, and drapes it over her face first thing. It helps open up the pores and gives her one moment when she cannot do anything else—no multitasking here! Plus, it has some exfoliating benefits, too.

2. Black clay cleanser cleared perioral dermatitis.

"It's the only cleanser I've used on my face for over five years now," she said. "The reason I use it is because I have perioral dermatitis— when I created the bar, I had a full-fledged case of P.D." Before using the black clay cleanser, she adored the look of Erno Laszlo soap. Inspired by how beautiful the black bar was, she set out to make her own green version, so she used clean ingredients like clay, dead sea mud, coconut milk, and avocado oil, and that's when her dermatitis started to resolve. Like most great inventions, her best-selling soap was an accident!

After about six full months of using this bar cleanser and making other lifestyle changes, including nixing fluoride toothpaste (now she uses Jason's sea fresh), eliminating sodium laurel and laureth sulfate from all products, and ceasing using cleansing oils for six months, her skin started to transform.

3. Proper moisture is essential.

Now that her skin has healed, she's reintroduced natural oils into her routine, including her rose booster serum. You can add it to anything, but she uses it straight on her neck and eye skin. The neck and eye skin are similar, she says, because they are both so thin.

Then she treats her whole face with the purely simple face cream and a few drops of nectar. If she's going to be spending a substantial amount of time outdoors, she'll layer on W3LL People's biotint, and she adds the rose booster serum to that as well because it helps it spread more easily.

4. Strategically placed no-makeup makeup.

Most days, Dr. V doesn't wear makeup. But when she does, a few days a month, she uses W3LL People concealer under her eyes first. Then, she uses a light dusting of alima pure satin matte foundation powder over her face.

She uses HAN Skin Care Cosmetics for her cheeks because it's one of the few formulations that doesn't include castor oil. "It's a common allergy that people don't know they have, and it's in almost everything, she said." She also uses their lip gloss. And on a fancy day, she'll wear W3LL People mascara and EcoBrow defining wax.

5. Evening showers bring skin powers.

Photo: Osmia Organics
She attributes part of the success of her morning routine to her evening shower. She's usually testing soap from Osmia, so she'll use whatever is fresh off the presses. For her body, she'll use Osmia's night body oil and the sandalwood body mousse and exfoliates once per week. "People scrub their skin wayyyyy too much," she said. "Those skin cells are not ready to face the world," and that can lead to redness and irritation. Dr. Villafranco follows the same facial cleansing routine in the evening as in the morning.

6. Pump up the (hair) volume.

For hair care, Dr. Villafranco swears by Josh Rosebrook and Innersense Organic Beauty. She's taken a new liking to Graydon's hair smoothie as well. "It's this green conditioner that smells like it's very, very herbal. It's really nice for getting the ends in between washing," she said.

Once she's out of the shower, she'll scrunch her hair with Innersense curl cream. She also adores GM Reverie's CAKE hair oil. "I sleep on my hair wet and wake up with an enormous situation. I just try to roll with it," she said.
7. Dry days call for double-hydration nights.

If it's been a dry day or if she's been outside a lot, she does what she calls a "double hydration" (very much inspired by double cleansing). "You know when you water a thirsty potted plant, and you just see the first pour run straight through? My dry skin does that with moisture." So she'll put the purely simple face cream and nectar on, wait a minute, and then go for a second layer. "I can really see my skin plump up from it," she said.