service with a smile

Quack + smile + lipstick = ?

–or rather, a sardonic grin and as much lip as one can get away with. Think Are You Being Served? and Yes, Minister. Here follows a shaggy-human story, verging on the saga of epic proportions. Within which can be found, it is hoped, useful stuff about the nature of shampoo and conditioner, what happens to your hair when you wash and condition it, how to read an ingredient list–featuring sample readings!–and how to Google shizz. Also, why The Beauty Brains and Bad Science rock, kick ass, and generally Rule OK. Yes, I am a fangirl. Unashamed. And proud of it.

I’m not talking the service-with-a-phoney-forced-rictus in shops, by incompetent ingrown ignorant sales assistants. Sorry, “sales associates” and “make-up artists.” That’s all beyond hope. I’ve been at the happy stage, for some years now, where the following conversation is no longer a fantasy but happens nearly every time:

SA: Can I help you?

G: [… pause… look SA straight in the eye … raise one–just one–eyebrow …  turn head to one side … smile quizzically but sadly … ]

G: No, I don’t think so.

Sometimes, very rarely, the conversation will continue:

SA: Are you sure?

G: [smile sweetly, perkily, brightly] Oh yes. Quite sure. But thank you ever so much for the kind offer.

Nope. Not that. But the kind of consultancy, research, and analysis I seem to have an unfortunate habit of providing for free over on MUA. If anyone would like to hire my services to do this for actual money, do let me know. In the meantime, I’m happy to do my small bit in the greater cause of BS-busting, gratis et pro bono. For a stellar model of how this is done by the BS-bashing experts, see this section of Ben Goldacre’s “Bad Science” blog’s forum:

“Fun with Pseudoscience. Click here for action, and all the fun of the fair: quackery, scare stories, miracle cures, iffy adverts, passing banter and the great british sport of moron baiting…”

While we’re sort of on the subject, and before I fork off from the tangent so as to return to what I was going to talk about in the first place–see also these two rather splendid and heartening recent pieces, from BS:

And now, back to The Point. A conversation about hair…


I see you are very knowledgable about ing’s & I’ve posted my question on the HB but another set of eyes would help. I’ve been cone free for almost 2 weeks but my conditioner had cones that I wasn’t aware of. I ordered the John Masters cone fragrance free dish & I saw your review ( the only one lol ). I adore the new shampoo even though it has sulfates. I just wanna make sure it is indeed cone free, if you could take a look at the ing’s & let me know if it is cone free, I’d appreciate it. Thanks in advance:
Water/Aqua/Eau, Ammonium Laureth Sulfate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfonate, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Polyquaternium-47, Lauryl Pyrrolidone, Salvia Officinalis (Sage) Leaf Extract, Urtica Dioica (Nettle) Extract, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Flower Extract, Humulus Lupulus (Hops) Extract, Rosmarinus Officinalis (Rosemary) Leaf Extract, Melissa Officinalis Leaf Extract, Achillea Millefolium Extract, Prunus Serotina (Wild Cherry) Bark Extract, Cymbopogon Schoenanthus Extract, Calendula Officinalis Flower Extract, Hydroxypropyltrimonium Honey, Sodium Pca, Hydrolyzed Oats, Acetamide Mea, Panthenol, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Hyaluronic Acid, Linoleic Acid, Linolenic Acid, Sorbitol, Triticum Vulgare (Wheat) Germ Oil, Simmondsia Chinensis (Jojoba) Seed Oil, Tocopherol, Sulfur, Silk Amino Acids, Cocodimonium Hydroxypropyl Hydrolyzed Keratin, Acrylates/Peg-10 Maleate/Styrene Copolymer, Tetrasodium Edta, Citric Acid, Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate, Parfum/Fragrance, Methylchloroisothiazolinone, Methylisothiazolinone, Red 40 (Ci 16035).
I know there might be some ing’s you might not be fond of but I have allergies to many essential oils & scents and this shampoo has worked great so I’m just wondering about cones.



[Ed.–See? Flattery–works every time. Niceness–always works in your favour. Nicely done.]

No silicones, not to worry!
The sulfates in this are, IMHE, fine. The one to really worry about is sodium laurYl sulfate (SLS), but really only if you’re eczematic (*raises hand*); some others, and some combinations, can be stripping on treated hair.
Scents, totally agree, up to you and what your nose and skin can handle–and like! that’s so important too!! [Ed.–sorry, I do sometimes wax a bit naff.]



So sorry to message you again but I have another quick question. Is lauryl pyrrolidone a cone? I looked it up & it says a cleansing agent but it took me a year to find a great cone free shampoo & I hope it’s not a cone. Thank you so much 🙂



[Ed.–I like this correspondent. She asks good questions, of several sources, and questions her answers. Score another point for the worthy cause of good healthy scepticism.]

Quick answer: no, not a silicone. The sources you found were quite right!

Long answer: the clue’s in the name; not all chemical compounds ending in -one are silicones (actually, very few are)

The most common silicones used cosmetically (skin, hair, makeup) end in

Useful lists:

Useful further info:

See further on chemical naming:
(and pretty much any organic chemistry textbook, indeed most high-school chemistry ones and even–depending on place–middle- & high-school science ones).


Thank you for all the info!


yvw 🙂



the shampoo I was using was definitely not for me. I used it for 2 weeks and after about the 5th day of each week I had to clarify, my hair felt odd (if that makes sense). You know a shampoo isnt the right one for you when you feel like you have a new head of hair after clarifying lol. I have a liter of Malibu C Well Water shampoo (Im on well water) and I dont see any cones but would love your input about the formulation – I think you know enough to be able to look at ing’s and know if its quality stuff for the hair. Sorry for always coming to you but honestly, you seem to be one of the few that really knows hair and ing’s. BTW, the scent is very nice (barely there) and we’re both scent sensitive…

Water (Aqua, Eau), Sodium C14-15 Olefin Sulfonate, Cocoamidopropyl Betaine, Cocamide DIPA, Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate, Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate, Disodium EDTA, Linum Usitatissium (Linseed) Seed Extract, Hydrolyzed Rice Protein, Panthenol, Ascorbic Acid, Organic Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice, Glyceryl Caprylate/Caprate, Citric Acid, Polyquaternium-10, Sodium Gluconate, Glucose, Glycerin, Butylene Glycol, PEG-120 Methyl Glucose Dioleate, Phenoxyethanol, Potassium Sorbate , Fragrance (Parfum), Blue?1 (CI 42090).

I dont see any cones and from the research I was forced to do over the past few months I do see beneficial ing’s, am I correct (did I pass the test)?

[Ed.–Chuckle: there’s no test. The only test is life, and it looks like you pass!]

It seems there’s some debate about whether or not the ing’s I sent you contain anything beneficial to the hair. I say yes but as usual another MUA’r is saying no – it has nothing ‘good for the hair’ & this person is also unsure about there being any cones in it so I hope you understand why I turn to you for help 😉



[Ed.–Deep breath. Dive straight in. Feels like this, though:]

Looks OK to me–a straight-forward shampoo; probably won’t be super-moisturising (but that’s what conditioner’s for). Run-down on ingredients:
Water, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice: good stuff; allows formula to be, well, liquid, fluid, for practical purposes.
Sodium C14-15 Olefin Sulfonate, Cocoamidopropyl Betaine, Cocamide DIPA, Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate, Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate: detergents (i.e. stuff to clean), mild, fairly standard
Disodium EDTA, Sodium Gluconate: chelating agents, viscosity adjusters, fine. More info, see here:
Linseed Extract, Hydrolyzed Rice Protein, Panthenol, Glycerin, : moisturisers, conditioning agents
Ascorbic Acid: vitamin C. Won’t do anything for hair, might be good on skin (scalp for ex.), may also be here to lower pH (good: more acidic, closer to skin pH)
Glyceryl Caprylate/Caprate: emulsifiers/emollients, some conditioning
Citric Acid: pH adjuster (acidify), some preservative properties
Polyquaternium-10: reduces static/fly-aways, adds impression of body & shine
Glucose: sugar, hydrophilic humectant, for moisture and fullness (works like HA)
Butylene Glycol: humectant, emollient (for “feel” of shampoo as much as anything)
PEG-120 Methyl Glucose Dioleate: thickener (for “feel” of shampoo)
Phenoxyethanol, Potassium Sorbate: preservatives, bactericides, prevent stuff from going off
Fragrance, Blue?1 (CI 42090): no functional purpose

So: the stuff in your shampoo is inoffensive. Most of the ingredients fall into the following categories, for what they do:
1. make the shampoo feel nice–not too runny, not too thick, not too gummy, etc.
2. clean hair: the detergents
3. adjust the pH to an appropriate lower level
4. act as preservatives

and no, there are no silicones in it: I know you don’t like them so good news 🙂

Some of the ingredients are there for moisturising purposes; they’d moisturise skin (including scalp), and certainly add to the moist rich feel of the product, but I’d agree with your other sources that they don’t necessarily do much for *hair*.

However: this isn’t necessarily such a bad thing, given the purposes of shampoo:

1. To clean hair–but also scalp. Without irritating scalp. It’s as important to be skin-compatible as anything else. The stuff I’ve labelled in your formula as moisturising does that for skin.

2. To keep scalp (and its flora) healthy, including stimulating hair growth. Bear in mind that the only part of hair that’s alive is the root: below (and right on) the surface of the skin. Rubbing the scalp does this a little, via increasing blood circulation as much as anything else. Most stimulation for hair growth, though, will be from the inside: what you eat. And–on blood circulation–exercise. So long as the shampoo is fine on your skin, and you massage the scalp, you’ll be ticking this box.

3. The hair shaft will get clean through shampoo running down it, for the most part; it usually doesn’t need any extra work. Sure, a shampoo shouldn’t actively damage hair: hence why washing-up liquid and other stronger household detergents aren’t a good idea. But a shampoo doesn’t need to be overloaded with moisturisers. You’re washing it out! (Same goes for face and body cleansers.)

4. To prepare hair for conditioning.

On conditioning shampoos (initially intended as 2-in-1 combined shampoo+conditioner) and how they work, see:

Quite a lot of “conditioning shampoos” are actually–in formulation–very similar or identical to 2-in-1s; the issue with them is that it’s the silicones that leave a conditioning coating on the hair: great if just doing the one wash (and go), not so good if you try to follow with a conditioner, whose action will be blocked by the coating…

Conditioning is what “is good for” the hair. Hair is, remember, dead; nothing can “feed” it or “make it healthier”–it can only be made to *look* better fed, healthier, plumper, etc.

Shampooing will lift up the cuticles down each hair shaft–they’ll feel a little rough when you rinse the shampoo out. This is normal, and how a properly-formulated shampoo works. At this stage, adding moisturisers c/o conditiioner will slip them in between and on top of cuticles; adding moisture, smoothing them down, filling in “gaps” where there’s breakage, adding fullness, ideally keeping moisture in too. This is why it’s a good idea to keep conditioner on for longer.

Note that breaks, split ends, and other damage can’t be “mended” permanently: they can, however, be patched over–which will reduce the chance of a tear spreading. Think of tights/pantyhose that get a ladder: it’s like applying a blob of clear nail-varnish to stop the rip from continuing all the way up your leg.

Moisturisers that do this: various oils and waxes, synthetic parallels (such as quats), silicones (smoothing down), hydrolyzed protein (note: as opposed to amino acids or proteins–don’t work as well), .

Now: those conditioning agents work on the hair outside. There are a few that have been proven to be beneficial–strengthening, patching over any breaks–on the inside, going to the core of the hair shaft:
coconut oil
olive oil
avocado oil
on these (and other oils, penetrative abilities, etc.) see:
(possibly, data inconclusive) panthenol / provitamin B5

Best two ways to use them, IMO, are:
1. as a pre-wash, like hot oil treatments: massage into scalp and (gently) down length of hair. Some people leave oil on overnight; my hair’s too fine for that, but I find 20 min or so is good, 30-45 great.
2. in your conditioner; and smoothed into hair ends at the end of a wash.

Also: so as to “seal down” cuticles at the end of washing hair, once you’ve conditioned, rinse out with cold water. As cold as you can manage, as long as you can. Seriously, worth the effort (and agony!!!).

More on all this hair business: see The Beauty Brains
how shampoos work: part 1
part 2
part 3
on 2-in-1 (that link in last email=the basic formula)
all shampoo posts:
and similarly (use the site’s search function) on conditioners, and so on…

And see the various hair forums: long hair community, curly hair, etc. Useful–range of opinions and schools of thought.

Hope that’s all useful, sorry for length–but better that than leaving gaps or being unclear!


[Ed.–a quick breath of fresh air and entremets

For the record, news fresh in (2011-07-30) about The Beauty Brains: Do You Read The Most Influential Beauty And Fashion Blogs?

Also: on oils that actually do diddly squat for conditioning hair: do, O buyers, beware of the con that goes beyond the Emperor’s New Clothes: plain oil masquerading as plain-oil-with-a-fancy-name.

Case in point: L’Oréal Professionnel Mythic Oil (c/o €15.20 / 125 ml. “Enriched with”–i.e. contains, but not the only ingredients, nor indeed the main ones–avocado and grapeseed oils. Neither of which is “precious,” both being pretty cheap oils, readily available from shops. Only the former demonstrably does anything, and neither is mythic (olive oil, for the record, is mythic).

See also: Kérastase Elixir Ultime (c/o, a.k.a. “ultimate highway robbery” ($50.00 / 125 ml). ]



You’re great! That was like a crash course in shampoo & it really helped! Much appreciation for all the info & time you put into your reply. I have fine hair too & only use dish from the ears down or my scalp gets irritated no matter what I use & my hair is weighed down. Right now I’m using Vo5 conditioner, one that’s cone free & waiting for the John Masters fragrance free to come. Again, many thanks for sharing such insightful knowledge – I can’t thank you enough 🙂



[Ed.–mmmm, this is the part I like, like being a cat and getting my tummy rubbed…Also: too bloody right. Damn fool me. All that writing is not, I stress not, just going into archived mail. Dammit. Also, I’m not great. Don’t praise my knowledge: this is simply research skills; which I do ridiculously fast. Damn, cat let out of bag. Now everyone knows. Also, too many cats in mixed metaphors now. There will be metaphorical-cat-fights. Maybe even more serious cat-related problems, e.g. Schroedinger’s Cat (on which, see also the very good eponymous Robert Anton Wilson fictions). Ulp, anyway.]

hey, you’re welcome! I’ll be sticking a lot of that hair stuff on my blog too (I end up doing that sort of thing quite a bit, to-ing and fro-ing between that and MUA…)
best wishes for happy hair 🙂



I’m really on a mission to find a great leave in that’s cone free, not for styling just to add some of the good stuff hair needs but finding one that doesn’t have a strong scent & is free of the things I’m allergic to is tough. […] Forgot to ask: how do you feel about Vo5 conditioner (the cone free ones)? I’m curious to know your thoughts. It’s literally the only dish I can use without any weight, getting too much protein/moisture, and it rinses out clean. But so many ppl are stuck on Kerastase, Je Veux, etc. and here I am happy as can be with a dollar conditioner lol.



VO5 looks fine–and it’s cruelty-free, unlike Kérastase! I can’t handle the scent, that’s all. Their hot oil range is also really good. […]

Cone-free fragrance-free leave-in: the JMO Bare conditioner would do it. The formula’s identical to their Citrus & Neroli Detangler, but minus the scent. The C&N is both a rinse-out and a leave-in. Therefore you can use the Bare for both purposes too.

The back of the Bare bottle, by the way, has a mistake: the instructions for use are the same as the ones on the shampoo. I contacted JMO to tell them; they’ll be changing them when they’ve used up all the current stock of plastic containers and are ordering the next lot to be made…

Lots of other conditioners work fine as leave-ins; some need to be watered down a little. Most leave-ins are just a marketing ploy to get you to buy more stuff; and in a more convenient bottle. You can make up your own-whether you prefer a squeeze or pump or spray bottle–just mix conditioner and water (use distilled) to the right texture. Can also add aloe vera and whatever else; and shake well before use.

Another one that’s good (but pricey): Phyto 7 and their 9.



I found this suggestion on the LHC board & of course wanted your opinion. All I really need to confirm is it’s cone free (there might be some hidden cones) and overall how it looks. Fingers crossed on this one. And I promise not to message you with every shampoo question I have lol but this is a huge surprise!

Water (Aqua), Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Cocamide MEA, Ammonium Chloride, Fragrance (Parfum), Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose, Tetrasodium EDTA, DMDM Hydantoin, Citric Acid, Propylene Glycol, Polysorbate 20, Tocopheryl Acetate [Vitamin E Acetate], Mangifera Indica (Mango) Fruit Extract, Citrus Nobilis (Mandarin Orange) Peel Oil, Methylchloroisothiazolinone, Methylisothiazolinone, PPG-9, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Extract [Aloe Vera], Yellow 5 (CI 19140), Red 33 (CI 17200)



Yes, cone-free.
The fragrance and orange (peel) oil could be potential irritants–no guarantees either way, YMMV, etc.; but if you’ve been irritated by fragrance in the past, worth looking out for.

Hope that helps!



I’ve examined these ing’s for hours and I’d appreciate your input. First, are there any cones & are these ing’s beneficial for scalp & hair? I never thought coffee extract helped stimulate hair growth! It’s a shampoo by Natures Gate & I’m loving what I see but really need a pair of ‘expert eyes’.

Water, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Cocamide DEA, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Biotin, Hordeum Distichon (Barley) Extract, Panthenol, Cystein, Cystine Bis-Pg-Propyl Silanetriol, Wheat Amino Acids,Soy Amino Acids, Arginine, Serine, Threonine, lnositol, Folic Acid, Simmondsia, Chinensis (Jajaba) Seed Oil, Geranium Maculatum Extract, Coffea Arabica (Coffee) Seed Extract, Viola Tricolor (pansy) Extract, Sodium Riboflavin Phosphate, Glycerin, Aloe Barbadensis (Aloe Vera) Leaf Juice, Niacin, Butylene Glycol, Citric Acid, Sodium Chloride, Glyceryl undecylenate, Phenoxyethanol, Fragrance.



[Ed.–Famous last words re. “I promise not to message you with every shampoo question I have lol.” Attention-span of a gnat. “xpert eyes”–flattery and cajoling again. But hey… here we go again… good question, and it’s always good to encourage questions and questioning; and the information will be publicized further afield anyway, so it might prove to the greater good of a greater number… ]

Hi there–

1. No ‘cones.

2. Coffee and hair growth: never having thought it aside–I *know* of no evidence for this statement. Sounds to me like someone thought “it’s a stimulant: so it must stimulate hair growth too.” Which is factually false, and false reasoning 101 fail.
But, do your own research (by which I mean reputable sources and science journal articles…), who knows. Caffeine has benefits on skin: more on this on SCB and in reviews and so on.

2. Ingredient functions:
water, aloe vera, butylene glycol, sodium chloride: the base to the formula, to give the right texture; but. glyc. also a humectant
the first bunch are cleansers/detergents
the next bunch (from biotin to folic acid), plus riboflavin and niacin: amino acids, vitamin, pro-vitamins.Helps to mosturise hair and skin; (see links in earlier message) hydrolyzed proteins are more usable/penetrate hair better than amino acids or straight-up proteins, but the latter still do a decent job.
3. jojoba oil, glycerin, glyceryl undecylenate: moisturise (skin and, to some extent, hair shaft)
4. geranium, fragrance: scent
5. pansy: NG claim it’s to protect against environmental damage. I’d not take their word for it, but go off and research it and see… Wikipedia is always a start. Some way down the “pansy” page, there’s a lovely story “explaining” why pansies have no scent. Looks like it’s used in phytotherapy/naturopathy/herbal remedies, but on skin: nothing for use on hair. Looks like at the very worst it’s harmless (and there in very small dose anyway).
6. coffee: may have skin benefits (though this far down the ing. list, I have doubts)
7. citric acid: lower the pH to a skin- and hair-friendly moderately acidic level
8. phenoxyethanol: preservative

Hope that helps. That’s the NG Jojoba shampoo, right? I’ve found Nature’s Gate shampoos to be generally decent and reliable–I’ve liked that one, also the Herbal, Hemp, Aloe Vera, and Chamomile. The Biotin and Pomegranate Sunflower ones look decent too; not tried, using up my Avalon Organics and stuck alas with unscented for the time being! I found some of them can be a bit drying, so I’d recommend the ones that says they’re more moisturising (indeed, even, for damaged, coloured, messed-up, abused etc. hair), and look in the ing. list for more oils, as near the start of the list as possible. The other main difference from one to another is scent: try before you buy. Unashamedly!

Another good place to look for guidance: reviews on bigger websites that sell the stuff. I usually look at the ones on,,,,



You know I’m cone free & have a great shampoo but having a tough time finding a good dish. I’m using Vo5 tea therapy blackberry sage dish but oddly enough it’s kinda drying & after a few uses I feel like I need to clarify. I had a reaction to the JM fragrance free one. I’m hoping for a drugstore dish similar to Vo5 but with better results. That scent doesn’t linger & is inoffensive. I’ve tried Nexxus & Biolage but not for me. Suave sucks. Any ideas come to mind? Maybe a different Vo5 dish but which one?
Thanks for all your help!



[Ed.–Bless you, I do remember. Then again, I may be a redhead but I’m not a goldfish.]

Avalon Organics grapeseed & olive (orange label)
Desert Essence (turquoise bottle)
Earth Science (lavender-periwinkle label)
(both are unscented)

Others worth a look-smell:
Avalon Organics Biotin and others
Burt’s Bees green tea & fennel. Yes, it says it’s for coloured hair; can be used on untreated too.
Desert Essence (various)
Earth Science, the citrus one (yellow-amber label)
EO (various)
Hugo (various)
Jason (various)
Lavera Basis or Rose
Nature’s Gate (various)
ShiKai (various)
(all at Whole Foods and similar; I’d recommend going to the store, reading labels, sniffing things, eventually buying a couple to try out at home; that’s how I do my research anyway… aside from MUA reviews. Check out Trader Joe’s as well; I haven’t been in years, as we don’t have it in Vancouver, but their own-brand stuff seems to be worth investigating.)

Possibly also, drugstore in North America:
Naked Naturals
Tresemme (if you can stand the scent–that’s my issue with their stuff)
Yes to (Carrots etc.)

See also, for more:

Hope that helps; afraid it’s still a matter of testing stuff out on yourself and your hair…



I’ve googled it & found no info. It’s in a shampoo I want to try & it’s high up on the list. I’m wondering if it’s water soluble and if not, how much would it coat? trimethylsiloxamodimethicone

Heres the full list so it might help in determining it’s function: water, ammonium cocoyl isetmiohionate, cocamidapropyl betaine, sodium lauroamphoacetate, cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaine, decyl glucoside, glycol distearate, sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, polyquaternium-10, polyquaternium-7, cocodimonium hydroxypropyl silk amino acids, trimethylsiloxamodimethicone, thermus thermophylus ferment, enteromorpha compressa extract, himanthalia elongata extract (sea silk), hypnea musciformis extract, gellidiela ascerosa extract, sasrgassum filipendula extract, ascophyllum nodosum extract, chondrus crispus (carrageenan) extract, macrocystis pyriffera extract, palmaria palmata extract, neptune kelp extract, undaria pinnatifida extract,pelvita canaliculata extract, laminaria digitalia, hydrolyzed rhodophycea extract, cinnamidopropyltrimonium chloride, hydrolyzed vegetable protein pg-propyl silanetriol, ppg-5 ceteth-10 phosphate, polyquaternium-7, c11-15 pareth-7, c12-16 pareth-9, helianthus annuus (sunflower) seed extract, glycerin, trideceth-12, phenoxyethanol, caprylyl glycol, sorbic acid, tetrasodium edta, butylene glycol, citric acid, fragrance (parfum).

Any help is appreciated 🙂



sorry–am at work–suggest further research, ask on hair board? also, off MUA, check the beauty brains forum, the various long hari etc. fora too?
G xox



Mmmm, future potential: the harmonious joys of ginger and shallot, when combined in classic Thai style with lemon, coconut, chili, and dry shrimp

For the record:

  • I was at work (hence fast typing and heinous typo/Freudian slip)
  • “trimethylsiloxamodimethicone” [sic.] isn’t water-soluble
  • “I’ve googled it & found no info”? WTF?? WWJD???

Being at least part-human (depending on your chosen version of events / reading), he’d do this:

Ah–I see. OK, let’s try again with the suggested orthographic change:

Even from just the first page of results–without going through all 384, let alone actually opening and reading each result–you can already kinda see where the whole water soluble/insoluble thing is going. Let’s look a little more closely at those search results:

See the third result there? That’s the MF data sheet on our good old trimethylsiloxyamodimethicone. From that data sheet, a.k.a. The Horse’s Mouth, we have this:

From p. 2 (screenshot):

QED: Solubility in water = not 

But: you’ll recall that earlier business,

it is easily re-emulsified and thus easily washed out

Suggestion, to all and sundry: try using shampoo, not just water.

Note: that will be incompatible with the COM. That is: conditioner-only method: using only conditioner, no shampoo; both washing and moisturising hair with conditioner. And, if giving hair a quick wash, just soaking it and conditioning. It’s not necessarily as daft as it sounds: rather like washing skin with emollient cream, or indeed many cream cleansers. And the COM does have a substantial body of evidence behind it (see: various curly hair fora online) for certain hair types.

As ever, guys and gals, the moral of the story can be summed up succinctly:

YMMVγνῶθι σεαυτόν

Image at top: Bad Science (Ben Goldacre’s primary blog)

One comment

  1. rat types color

    I have been surfing online more than 2 hours today, yet I never found
    any interesting article like yours. It’s pretty worth enough for me. In my view, if all website owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the net will be much more useful than ever before.

    [Ed. LOL]

Care to reply?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s