 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:04 pm  |
| ParisTroika wrote: |
Am I the only one that LL DIDN'T work on?
Maybe my lashes are just stupidly resistant to the KGF. |
PT, I don't know anything about the LL or if it contains KGF as I've not been one of the lucky few to get to try it. But, in response to your question about KGF--I doubt that you'd be resistant to KGF since Keratinocyte Growth Factor is our own natural signal to produce keratin (in this case as hair). There must be another reason. As with any "signal", the cells need the raw materials to work with to be able to "obey" the signal.
Just a thought.
A |
_________________
Be the kind of woman that when your feet hit the floor each morning the devil says, "Oh Crap, She's up!" Unknown |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:00 pm |
| Tosca wrote: |
| Let me get this straight BBKgirl, were you one of the original 15 testers? I'm confused about this because I thought they were all older members who had been around long enough for Carrie to have gotten to know them pretty well. |
I think I can answer this Q  .
I do not believe that BBKgirl was one of the original testers. However, as stated in her very first post, " ...so I begged Carrie to sell me the Lush Lash to try. And she took pity on me. I received it in late March and promptly switched to LL on the same day I received it..." therefore, I believe that BBKgirl just got a hold of Carrie and they figured out a solution for BBKgirls 'need' of LL. Or at least that's what I got from the post.....lol  HTH =) |
_________________
20; light/ fair-toned with freckles on cheeks/nose since I could remember; combo skin w/ Oily forehead, chin prone to acne. Green/brown eyes; growing to love my medium/ dark brown hair. |
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:31 am |
| PT: How long did you try it for? Because I didn't really notice much difference until 2 weeks ago which means I didn't notice a difference until after 2 months of daily use. Now because I have quite a few layers of lashes due to Ardell I've only been noticing new length on SOME of them but I'm hoping with prolonged use I will be able to see MOST of them lengthened. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:32 am |
| sormuimui wrote: |
| PT: How long did you try it for? Because I didn't really notice much difference until 2 weeks ago which means I didn't notice a difference until after 2 months of daily use. Now because I have quite a few layers of lashes due to Ardell I've only been noticing new length on SOME of them but I'm hoping with prolonged use I will be able to see MOST of them lengthened. |
I got it in March, and used it for a month before I had to stop. I had really bad irritation in both eyes so I put it down for a week and tried again, but had to stop again. |
_________________
32, Fair Skin, combo/break-out prone. Simple routine of REN No. 1 Purity Cleansing Balm and Argan oil as a moisturizer; Clarisonic when needed. That's it! |
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:50 am |
| girldelvov wrote: |
| Tosca wrote: |
| Let me get this straight BBKgirl, were you one of the original 15 testers? I'm confused about this because I thought they were all older members who had been around long enough for Carrie to have gotten to know them pretty well. |
I think I can answer this Q .
I do not believe that BBKgirl was one of the original testers. However, as stated in her very first post, " ...so I begged Carrie to sell me the Lush Lash to try. And she took pity on me. I received it in late March and promptly switched to LL on the same day I received it..." therefore, I believe that BBKgirl just got a hold of Carrie and they figured out a solution for BBKgirls 'need' of LL. Or at least that's what I got from the post.....lol HTH =) |
Oh, I see that now! Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I skipped over that part to see the photos. Hmmm.. That means she started right after the testers did. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:39 am |
| ParisTroika wrote: |
| sormuimui wrote: |
| PT: How long did you try it for? Because I didn't really notice much difference until 2 weeks ago which means I didn't notice a difference until after 2 months of daily use. Now because I have quite a few layers of lashes due to Ardell I've only been noticing new length on SOME of them but I'm hoping with prolonged use I will be able to see MOST of them lengthened. |
I got it in March, and used it for a month before I had to stop. I had really bad irritation in both eyes so I put it down for a week and tried again, but had to stop again. |
For me when I started, I didn't have any irritation whatsoever. But after using it for a while, I think near the 1 month point my eyes would sting if I got a bit of product in and they would water (no redness though). However I stuck with it and just tried to not get it TOO close to my eyeballs so less close to my lashline. But sometimes there's too much product on the wand so I just close my eyes a bit and the stinging goes away. I also don't do my lower lashes as product gets on them anyhow when I blink. Now I don't get much stinging though I still try not to suddenly get a big drop of product on my lashes. So for me it was just a phase. Her lash gloss on the other hand stings like crazy for some reason even though it didn't the first few uses. And it's only been around for 2-3 months used only a few times, but now everytime I use the lash gloss it STINGS really bad. And I have no idea why. Too bad it didn't work for you though, what kind of irritation did you get? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:49 am |
My eyes would burn/sting and they were somewhat red.
I never thought that my eyes were sensitive, but maybe they are. |
_________________
32, Fair Skin, combo/break-out prone. Simple routine of REN No. 1 Purity Cleansing Balm and Argan oil as a moisturizer; Clarisonic when needed. That's it! |
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:27 am |
I wonder what's the culprit that's causing burning and stinging for some people  Does anyone have the ingredients  |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:33 am |
| Tosca wrote: |
| Oh, I see that now! Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I skipped over that part to see the photos. Hmmm.. That means she started right after the testers did. Thanks. |
Yeah, no problem. . I do wonder if these are the typical results all of the other testers are experiencing, excluding those whom have had to stop because of the irritation...  . I guess what I'm trying to say is, "calling all testers."  |
_________________
20; light/ fair-toned with freckles on cheeks/nose since I could remember; combo skin w/ Oily forehead, chin prone to acne. Green/brown eyes; growing to love my medium/ dark brown hair. |
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:58 am |
| girldelvov wrote: |
| Tosca wrote: |
| Oh, I see that now! Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I skipped over that part to see the photos. Hmmm.. That means she started right after the testers did. Thanks. |
Yeah, no problem. . I do wonder if these are the typical results all of the other testers are experiencing, excluding those whom have had to stop because of the irritation... . I guess what I'm trying to say is, "calling all testers." |
I actually purchased it...I wasn't one of the original testers. |
_________________
32, Fair Skin, combo/break-out prone. Simple routine of REN No. 1 Purity Cleansing Balm and Argan oil as a moisturizer; Clarisonic when needed. That's it! |
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:10 pm |
| ParisTroika wrote: |
| I actually purchased it...I wasn't one of the original testers. |
Ahhh, ok. So I guess, 'Calling all who have tried.'  |
_________________
20; light/ fair-toned with freckles on cheeks/nose since I could remember; combo skin w/ Oily forehead, chin prone to acne. Green/brown eyes; growing to love my medium/ dark brown hair. |
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:35 pm |
I found my before RL pics taken on 1/3/07. Remember that I started the RL on 1/4. The pics were pretty poor quality because I didn't know about the closeup feature on my camera back then. But you could possibly still see I didn't start out with much after the lash extensions ruined it, and also I was never known for having long lashes since I was a kid. My mom always despaired on my lashes. I also found the 2/9/07 pic to show RL result at one month, and 3/26/07 pics which were just a few days before I switched to Lush Lash. Then 4/21/07 after one month use of LL, and then of course you have already seen 5/23/07, after 2 months usage.
BEFORE RL and LL - Date 1/3/07
REMEMBER THE QUALITY OF THESE PICS IS REALLY BAD. I WAS TRYING TO TAKE A CLOSEUP SHOT USING THE AUTO FEATURE. BUT YOU COULD SEE THE SHORTNESS OF THE LASHES FOR SURE.
ONE MONTH AFTER USING RL - DATE 2/9/07
2.5 MONTHS AFTER USING RL - DATE 3/26/07 (4 DAYS BEFORE SWITCHING TO LUSH LASH)
3 WEEKS AFTER SWITCHING TO LUSH LASH - DATE 4/21/07
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:13 pm |
I'm worried about the safety of this product. Comparative products that specifically say they will make your eyelashes longer and fuller have little disclaimers in small print (taken directly off their official websites):
| Quote: |
* Age Intervention Eyelash Conditioner is not intended to stop, prevent, cure, relieve, reverse or reduce eyelash loss or to promote the growth of eyelashes.
|
| Quote: |
Developed by a physician, RevitaLash™ is a remarkable cosmetic innovation that within weeks will help you achieve the appearance of long, healthy, beautiful eyelashes. |
Why these disclaimers? Because the FDA does not require safety testing of cosmetics products but does require safety testing of drugs... which is what these products would be if they were for making your eyelashes actually grow and change.
Is there a disclaimer on the Lush Lash packaging? If not it's a good time to put one up there, because right now that's either
A) Illegal, since you can't sell a product that's supposed to change the way something works, or even test it locally, without FDA testing, or
B) False advertising.
I knew that people were volunteering to be test subjects for Lush Lash, but I find that it was being sold at nearly the same time. So this is an untested product being sold as a drug for use around the eyes.
Basically the people who have paid for this product could sue. |
_________________
25, very fair, dry/sensitive, mild rosacea, otherwise good skin! |
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:09 pm |
| ParisTroika wrote: |
My eyes would burn/sting and they were somewhat red.
I never thought that my eyes were sensitive, but maybe they are. |
Paris - have you used any of the others? JM or RL? If so, did they irritate your eyes? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:53 pm |
| Harmonster wrote: |
I'm worried about the safety of this product. Comparative products that specifically say they will make your eyelashes longer and fuller have little disclaimers in small print
Why these disclaimers? Because the FDA does not require safety testing of cosmetics products but does require safety testing of drugs... which is what these products would be if they were for making your eyelashes actually grow and change.
I knew that people were volunteering to be test subjects for Lush Lash, but I find that it was being sold at nearly the same time. So this is an untested product being sold as a drug for use around the eyes. |
Not to be a PITA, but didn't you just state that because these other products (just like Lush Lash) do NOT say that they actually contribute to growing your eyelashes on their packaging, that they are NOT drugs, therefore do NOT need to be safety tested, therefore while LL may have been distributed to a few others outside a testing group it doesn't particularly matter because it is not a drug which basically does not require to be tested, and can be sold to use.
| Harmonster wrote: |
| Basically the people who have paid for this product could sue. |
Maybe, maybe not. I guess like you had stated in your previous quote, if LL was considered a drug, then the hurt it could do would be testifyable in some sort of law. But we don't know what the packaging looks like do we (or any warnings it may read). Also, because it seems that those few that had purchased LL instead of being chosen in the test group, had to have made some sort of agreement or statement with the seller that had made her see that if something bad where to happen, she would not be held liable (just like the testers, I believe). So, although those who had paid do seem like they'd have a solid case, because the product is not being openly sold right now we can see that the people who are trying it have completed a verbal contract with the seller against any hurt, whether they paid for the product or were chosen as testers.
OK, maybe I'm on a bit of a rant now  . Well just a few thoughts, nothing invasive . Anyways, anyone correct me if I'm wrong, or add on to anything you agree or disagree with as I know I may have said something strange/ weird since I'm pretty tired right now . |
_________________
20; light/ fair-toned with freckles on cheeks/nose since I could remember; combo skin w/ Oily forehead, chin prone to acne. Green/brown eyes; growing to love my medium/ dark brown hair. |
|
|
|
 |
Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:25 am |
Harmonster, I take great issue with just about everything you have posted on this topic. Your post is full of speculation and opinion and there appears to have been no research done by you into any of what you are speculating/opining about or claiming as fact. Your post is just a bunch of words that have little to no basis in truth. The post you made is what starts rumors and ill-will and I find it incredibly irresponsible of you to just post what you did without even asking questions or doing any research to find out if what you had to say was anything more than speculation and opinion.
| Harmonster wrote: |
I'm worried about the safety of this product. Comparative products that specifically say they will make your eyelashes longer and fuller have little disclaimers in small print (taken directly off their official websites):
| Quote: |
* Age Intervention Eyelash Conditioner is not intended to stop, prevent, cure, relieve, reverse or reduce eyelash loss or to promote the growth of eyelashes.
|
| Quote: |
Developed by a physician, RevitaLash™ is a remarkable cosmetic innovation that within weeks will help you achieve the appearance of long, healthy, beautiful eyelashes. |
|
Your argument is incredibly weak. If you are worried about the safety of this product, then don't buy it and don't use it. Real simple. But if you think that just because Jan Marini and RevitaLash eyelash growth products (yes, that is what they are!) have disclaimers on their packaging and/or websites that that suddenly makes them both safer than LushLash - or just plain safe period - you are sorely mistaken. A disclaimer is only words and will not make a product safe just by being printed on the side of a package or posted on a website. Likewise, a product can be perfectly safe and have no disclaimer on it at all. A disclaimer, in the case of JM and RL, appears to mainly work as a tool to avoid scrutiny by the FDA.
Both the JM and RL products are sold by those companies as eyelash growth products - they most likely just issued those disclaimers to appease the FDA. Its basically side-stepping. They draw you in promising a product that will make your lashes grow longer, but in small print they call them 'conditioners' and just say they are 'not intended' to do what they actually are marketed and hyped to do and will only 'give the appearance of' longer lashes. So "we're selling you a lash growth product but we can't really call it that." Its all a bunch of BS and I mean that to include the fact that the FDA is involved at all. You may have noticed that the FDA and the U.S. federal government oftentimes DON'T have the well-being of its people in mind - take a look at all the medications big pharma has put out that killed people and subsequently needed to be recalled. And we're splitting hairs over eyelashes here? Puhleeeze!
| Harmonster wrote: |
Why these disclaimers? Because the FDA does not require safety testing of cosmetics products but does require safety testing of drugs... which is what these products would be if they were for making your eyelashes actually grow and change.
Is there a disclaimer on the Lush Lash packaging? If not it's a good time to put one up there, because right now that's either
A) Illegal, since you can't sell a product that's supposed to change the way something works, or even test it locally, without FDA testing, or
B) False advertising. |
This part of your post is almost completely unintelligible. What ARE you trying to say? What does this even mean: "... Illegal, since you can't sell a product that's supposed to change the way something works..."? How does false advertising come in to play AT ALL?
Both the JM and RL products do make your eyelashes grow. So does LL. Do the products have drugs in them? Well, speculation was high that the JM product did, but I'm not sure that there was ever a real answer to that question. What about RL? That product seems to have flown under the FDA radar for the time being. What about LL? There are no drugs in that product. It is forumlated by a woman who is not a chemist but is one of many talented DIY-ers that can be found on EDS and who put together a product containing ingredients that anyone can get their hands on. I'm certain that a cosmetic DIY-er could NOT get his or her hands on many of the ingredients contained in either of the JM or RL products.
And you are wrong by in essence saying that only a drug can grow eyelashes. People take supplements and find that their eyelashes grow. Some people have had luck with Talika products growing their eyelashes, or serums containing KGF or ginseng.
| Harmonster wrote: |
| I knew that people were volunteering to be test subjects for Lush Lash, but I find that it was being sold at nearly the same time. So this is an untested product being sold as a drug for use around the eyes. |
Why on earth would you make the conclusion that "this is an untested product being sold as a drug for use around the eyes"? That is a total, non-sensical leap of logic that I find completely baffling! You are totally wrong saying that LL was being tested and offered for sale at "nearly the same time." LL testers were given the product last year. It only recently came up for sale and, as far as I know, is not even being sold widely on the open market. It is NOT an untested product - again - it was tested by many women, some who had great results with it, some who did not. LL is NOT being sold as a drug and it is incredibly irresponsible and potentially actionable for you to state otherwise!
| Harmonster wrote: |
| Basically the people who have paid for this product could sue. |
Oh my God! Do you have ANY idea what you are saying here? Please, answer these questions for me: (1) What GROUNDS would anyone who purchased this product have for a lawsuit? (2) What are their DAMAGES? (3) What INJURY have they suffered? (No, injury in this sense does not necessarily mean physical injury to one's body or psyche.) I think this society is litigous enough, thank you very much, and yes, I realize anyone can file a complaint in almost any court for almost any reason - but would it survive the litigation process? Would you, if you decided to SUE, be able to withstand the scrutiny of the process? And when your case got thrown out of court for being completely baseless and without merit, would you be able to withstand the resulting lawsuit against you for malicious prosecution (among other causes of action)? And BTW, "actionable" as used by me in the paragraph above means that your statements, which have been published on a public forum, very well may contain elements of libel in them, which means that the maker of LL might just be able to SUE YOU! How do you like them apples?
Please, I implore you to think before you click the "submit" button in the future. At the very least, as things stand right now, I think you owe CareKate a massive apology. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:37 am |
| girldelvov wrote: |
| Harmonster wrote: |
| Basically the people who have paid for this product could sue. |
Maybe, maybe not. |
Uhhh, yeah ... you'd be right if you went with "NOT."
| girldelvov wrote: |
| ... So, although those who had paid do seem like they'd have a solid case, ... |
Trust me on this, they would not have a case, solid or otherwise. There are no grounds for a lawsuit. Even if someone went totally and completely bat-shit blind by using the product, the bottom line is the bottom line - what would anyone be able to recover from the maker of the product?
Unless these manufacturers (big, small, in-between) are sufficiently insured, they are basically judgment proof. You can sue anyone for anything just about, but even if you have a righteous case with rock solid grounds and a 99.99999% chance of winning at trial, if the person you are suing has nothing to pay a judgment with, then the person suing (plaintiff) is basically sh!t out of luck and probably just wasted a crap load of money on legal and court fees (unless they were able to find a lawyer to take the case on a contingency basis and even then, any lawyer worth her or his Bar card would perform "due diligence" to determine if the target defendant was even worth suing and/or had the assets/insurance, etc. to support a judgment). |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:31 am |
| Mermaidgirl, eloquently said! It's such a shame that all people can think about these days is who they should sue next. It really makes my skin crawl. I once heard a very intelligent woman said, "some people really should get a dog called Life." |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:26 am |
Actually, bkk, what the intelligent woman said was:
Some people should get themselves a dog and name it "Life." Then, they could say they had one.
personally, I think some people should get a dog and name it "Orgasm" |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:29 am |
| katee wrote: |
Actually, bkk, what the intelligent woman said was:
Some people should get themselves a dog and name it "Life." Then, they could say they had one.
personally, I think some people should get a dog and name it "Orgasm" |
I knew that quote was funnier the first time I saw it! Love your new siggy, Katee! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:44 am |
| bkkgirl wrote: |
| Mermaidgirl, eloquently said! It's such a shame that all people can think about these days is who they should sue next. It really makes my skin crawl. I once heard a very intelligent woman said, "some people really should get a dog called Life." |
Thanks, C. I agree with you on the "who can I sue next for no good reason" problems with our society these days. Sheesh! Besides, I have my suspicions that that ill-thought out post, above, was purposely planted there in yet another effort to discredit and disparage Carrie. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:32 am |
I hope no one thinks that I'm trying to discredit CareKate or any of her products. I was an avid user of her pearl cream and pearl powder along with her Brightening mask and others. As she was dealing with some health issues and other circumstances, I had to replace what I usually got from her from other sources...but it was originally her products that became such staples I couldn't be without my pearl cream, powder, or mask!
LL didn't work for me. I wasn't using it incorrectly or differently than anyone else. I'm not trying to say it's a bum product. It's just like any other product. Some people swear by RevitaLash or Jan Marini while others wouldn't touch either with a ten foot pole.
I adore some products that others can't stand and feel they wasted money on while I'd pay to the ends of the earth not to be without them.
People just need to keep in mind that NO PRODUCT is a miracle product and no one product will work for all people. If that was the case, then there wouldn't be a skincare/makeup market! We'd all use the same stuff. The bottom line is, no one knows until they try it. I took a chance and lost out, but others have found great success.
But, it hasn't even been sold publicly (by publicly I mean that anyone can buy it) yet so perhaps we should just move on and once it becomes readily available, we can go back to reviewing it, discussing it, etc?
One thing is for sure...LL is definitely a hot-button issue! I don't think any one product has created such a stir!!! |
_________________
32, Fair Skin, combo/break-out prone. Simple routine of REN No. 1 Purity Cleansing Balm and Argan oil as a moisturizer; Clarisonic when needed. That's it! |
|
|
|
|
Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:41 am |
Laughing.... You must have missed the bellapelleskincare.com thread !!!
Seriously, though, I couldn't agree more ParisTroika.... Well said! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:25 pm |
| Arielle wrote: |
... in response to your question about KGF--I doubt that you'd be resistant to KGF since Keratinocyte Growth Factor is our own natural signal to produce keratin (in this case as hair). There must be another reason. As with any "signal", the cells need the raw materials to work with to be able to "obey" the signal.
Just a thought.
A |
Hey Arielle, very interesting point made here. What would the "raw materials" be - protein, vitamins? I'd love to know what you consider raw materials to be, as well as how to get them. Diet is obviously one way, but what about supplements?
Looking forward to your further input. TIA! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:19 pm |
Hi.
I realize that you don't know me, and I don't know you, and you're offended by what I've written.
Sorry about that. That's how I talk.
Now I'm going to pick apart your post like you did to me, try not to be offended because we're all ladies here, aren't we? My responses to your responses are in bold, since quoting inside the quotations are giving me a headache.
| MermaidGirl wrote: |
Harmonster, I take great issue with just about everything you have posted on this topic. Fair enough. I knew I would be upsetting people, but I think this is something that needs addressed. Your post is full of speculation and opinion and there appears to have been no research done by you into any of what you are speculating/opining about or claiming as fact. Your post is just a bunch of words that have little to no basis in truth. Where, exactly, are the false words in my post? The post you made is what starts rumors No, rumors are what is selling this product in the first place. and ill-will and I find it incredibly irresponsible of you to just post what you did without even asking questions or doing any research to find out if what you had to say was anything more than speculation and opinion.See, now you're posting on your own speculation/opinion, since you did no research into what research I did. Lol
| Harmonster wrote: |
I'm worried about the safety of this product. Comparative products that specifically say they will make your eyelashes longer and fuller have little disclaimers in small print (taken directly off their official websites):
| Quote: |
* Age Intervention Eyelash Conditioner is not intended to stop, prevent, cure, relieve, reverse or reduce eyelash loss or to promote the growth of eyelashes.
|
| Quote: |
Developed by a physician, RevitaLash™ is a remarkable cosmetic innovation that within weeks will help you achieve the appearance of long, healthy, beautiful eyelashes. |
|
Your argument is incredibly weak. I haven't argued anything at this point in my post.If you are worried about the safety of this product, then don't buy it and don't use it. Ok. This post is intended to warn others; I think it's pretty clear I'm not buying or using it. As a person with a history of eye-health problems I really don't play around with them. Real simple. But if you think that just because Jan Marini and RevitaLash eyelash growth products (yes, that is what they are!) have disclaimers on their packaging and/or websites that that suddenly makes them both safer than LushLash - or just plain safe period - you are sorely mistaken. A disclaimer is only words and will not make a product safe just by being printed on the side of a package or posted on a website. Ah, sorry. I think this is the major misconception. I feel like I did not get my point across well. I'm quite aware that these example products that I listed with their disclaimers (I chose these two because they're the most talked about from what I can tell, and I knew their names would be recognized by most of the forum members) may not be safe. I'm certainly not saying they're safe at all, considering the slew of bad reactions that are written in their reviews. Those disclaimers are there because they can't legally sell the product as what the hype suggests it is. They have to say it's a cosmetic, and that it will enhance something rather than alter it. Likewise, a product can be perfectly safe and have no disclaimer on it at all. A disclaimer, in the case of JM and RL, appears to mainly work as a tool to avoid scrutiny by the FDA.THANK YOU! That is EXACTLY what I'm saying! The disclaimers have to be there, or else the FDA has to test it. Let's all say it together now: either LL needs a disclaimer, or the FDA has to test it for safety before it can be marketed.
Both the JM and RL products are sold by those companies as eyelash growth products - they most likely just issued those disclaimers to appease the FDA. Yes.Its basically side-stepping. Yes again!They draw you in promising a product that will make your lashes grow longer, but in small print they call them 'conditioners' and just say they are 'not intended' to do what they actually are marketed and hyped to do and will only 'give the appearance of' longer lashes. So "we're selling you a lash growth product but we can't really call it that." Its all a bunch of BS and I mean that to include the fact that the FDA is involved at all. Ok thank you so much. You just said everything that I was trying to say in a much more eloquent way. You may have noticed that the FDA and the U.S. federal government oftentimes DON'T have the well-being of its people in mind - take a look at all the medications big pharma has put out that killed people and subsequently needed to be recalled. And we're splitting hairs over eyelashes here? Puhleeeze!Oh yeah, but that's a whole 'nother topic.
| Harmonster wrote: |
Why these disclaimers? Because the FDA does not require safety testing of cosmetics products but does require safety testing of drugs... which is what these products would be if they were for making your eyelashes actually grow and change.
Is there a disclaimer on the Lush Lash packaging? If not it's a good time to put one up there, because right now that's either
A) Illegal, since you can't sell a product that's supposed to change the way something works, or even test it locally, without FDA testing, or
B) False advertising. |
This part of your post is almost completely unintelligible. Sorry. I was tired.What ARE you trying to say? What does this even mean: "... Illegal, since you can't sell a product that's supposed to change the way something works..."? It means that you can't sell something as a drug w/out FDA approval.How does false advertising come in to play AT ALL? Because without a disclaimer it's a drug, so if it's NOT a drug, it needs a disclaimer! It's a vicious cycle really.
Both the JM and RL products do make your eyelashes grow. So does LL. Do the products have drugs in them? Well, speculation was high that the JM product did, but I'm not sure that there was ever a real answer to that question.Yes. It did. It had a glaucoma treatment in it, which the FDA found out about and yanked it out and this leads us to the debate of whether or not the NEW JM one works at all, since that ingredient has been forcibly removed. What about RL? That product seems to have flown under the FDA radar for the time being. Maybe they're happy since it doesn't have a prescription drug in it and it has a little disclaimer?What about LL? There are no drugs in that product. Sweet... then it's just a glorified lash conditioner? It is forumlated by a woman who is not a chemist but is one of many talented DIY-ers that can be found on EDS and who put together a product containing ingredients that anyone can get their hands on. Unfortunately you'd be surprised about what people can get their hands on, but that's not really what's being debated here. I know we've all heard about people making bombs with household items. I'm quite sure there are things in everyone's houses that can change their lives in new and exciting ways. I'm certain that a cosmetic DIY-er could NOT get his or her hands on many of the ingredients contained in either of the JM or RL products.Honestly, I think they could. The only one that would have been tricky before was the glaucoma medication, but now that has been removed. I'm worried about all the people who had used JM before, actually. What they did with that product was all kinds of illegal, not to mention unethical.
And you are wrong by in essence saying that only a drug can grow eyelashes. People take supplements and find that their eyelashes grow. Some people have had luck with Talika products growing their eyelashes, or serums containing KGF or ginseng. Just some trivia, sometimes people who have contract pink eye notice that their eyelashes show marked growth. The world is a crazy place. Disclaimer: Harmonster is not suggesting that anyone attempt to contract pink eye in an effort to make their eyelashes grow.
| Harmonster wrote: |
| I knew that people were volunteering to be test subjects for Lush Lash, but I find that it was being sold at nearly the same time. So this is an untested product being sold as a drug for use around the eyes. |
Why on earth would you make the conclusion that "this is an untested product being sold as a drug for use around the eyes"? That is a total, non-sensical leap of logic that I find completely baffling! You are totally wrong saying that LL was being tested and offered for sale at "nearly the same time." LL testers were given the product last year. It only recently came up for sale and, as far as I know, is not even being sold widely on the open market. It is NOT an untested product - again - it was tested by many women, some who had great results with it, some who did not. LL is NOT being sold as a drug and it is incredibly irresponsible and potentially actionable for you to state otherwise! Oh. My mistake. I just read a post stating that the product was being sold pretty much right after the testers started "testing". If that post was incorrect then I guess I am too. I also don't consider sufficient testing to see if a product does what it says it does or not. I consider that someone will be looking out for the consumer, and I've noticed that no one cares when people have had bad reactions... Lol. In fact, my post caused more uproar than the health of our members. Cute!!!!
| Harmonster wrote: |
| Basically the people who have paid for this product could sue. |
Oh my God! Do you have ANY idea what you are saying here? Here we go:Please, answer these questions for me: (1) What GROUNDS would anyone who purchased this product have for a lawsuit?(2) What are their DAMAGES? (3) What INJURY have they suffered? (No, injury in this sense does not necessarily mean physical injury to one's body or psyche.) Ok, sorry. I know at the beginning of this post I stated that I wasn't going to do the quote-in-a-quote thing, but I'm not sure how else to get this across:
| Quote: |
False Advertising
"Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities" (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)).
Proof Requirement
To prove that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.
|
And yes. Someone who has paid money for a product could sue. Still not sure why? Read that.
I think this society is litigous enough, thank you very much, I like your opinion, and I happen to agree with it. I'm just stating facts. and yes, I realize anyone can file a complaint in almost any court for almost any reason Great country, isn't it?- but would it survive the litigation process? Heck, that's not up to me or you to decide! Would you, if you decided to SUE, be able to withstand the scrutiny of the process? Now we're completely off topic. I thought you didn't want to hear my "opinions and speculation"?? And when your case got thrown out of court for being completely baseless and without merit, would you be able to withstand the resulting lawsuit against you for malicious prosecution (among other causes of action)? And BTW, "actionable" as used by me in the paragraph above means that your statements, which have been published on a public forum, very well may contain elements of libel in them, which means that the maker of LL might just be able to SUE YOU! How do you like them apples?Newp. I didn't say one thing that was libel. Now you could have taken it that way, but really nothing defamatory was stated towards Lush Lash or it's creator, just "opinions and speculation". The only thing I said that was somewhat sketchy was, "So this is an untested product being sold as a drug for use around the eyes." But I guess the "untested" thing is debatable... I guess it depends on what you determine to define "tested" as. It is being marketed like a drug. DRUG: any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals.(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drug)
Please, I implore you to think before you click the "submit" button in the future. At the very least, as things stand right now, I think you owe CareKate a massive apology. |
I didn't address Carekate at all. I addressed the safety and the marketing of Lush Lash. You, however, have directly attacked me.
 |
_________________
25, very fair, dry/sensitive, mild rosacea, otherwise good skin! |
|
|
|
| Fri Apr 19, 2024 11:47 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
