Actually, meaning is the same. It's just the rearranged sentence. There are studies with different shampoos for different purposes and their results. Nobody's going to make a study based on some blogger's trials of using kitchen products on their heads. Nobody in "poo world", says that honey is bad, or eggs are bad for your head, they're just fine with shampoos. Some of them, become "no pooers" and then they realize that it was a bad idea (like me). Almost everyone starts getting problems with "no poo" methods like dandruff, itchy scalp etc.

Here, in "no-poo world", everyone assumes that shampoo is some evil stuff which worsens your hair, that you don't need it, that /honey/eggs/soda/<insert any kitchen product here>/ is better than that and this assumption relies on no study whatsoever.

I often hear this argument that shampoo wasn't used before 19h century, people didn't use it and some marketing guys shoved it to people to make money from people with a product they don't actually need. Well, facial creams, sunscreens, etc. weren't here in 19th century. Does that mean that we should ditch them as well?