| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:39 am  |
I'm attaching a link to a new product from Dermadoctor - not because I have any interest in this product, but because the ad shows before and after pictures with a 67% improvement in 8 weeks. Sixty-seven percent sounds like a lot, but I'm not very impressed with the pictures - and I probably won't be the only one. But it's interesting to see what 67% actually gets you. 
http://www.dermadoctor.com/new-arrivals/photodynamic-therapy-eye-lift.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:27 am |
I've never understood those "percentage improvements". 67% of what?
Well at least the "after" shot hasn't been photoshopped to look like a 12 year old... |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:44 am |
The pics were definitely not impressive at all. I did notice that the link showed that:
•65% of panelists reported less sagging skin
•80% of panelists reported firmer skin
•90% want to continue application
Frankly, I am not interested in what the panelists reported, lol....I want to see something more concrete. |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:17 am |
| Panda1 wrote: |
I'm attaching a link to a new product from Dermadoctor - not because I have any interest in this product, but because the ad shows before and after pictures with a 67% improvement in 8 weeks. Sixty-seven percent sounds like a lot, but I'm not very impressed with the pictures - and I probably won't be the only one. But it's interesting to see what 67% actually gets you.
http://www.dermadoctor.com/new-arrivals/photodynamic-therapy-eye-lift.html |
Thanks for posting this, Panda. I got a real eye opener seeing the before/afters from the other product, but I am still surprised that this is what 67% improvement looks like. I would have thought there would be more difference. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:05 pm |
If this is 68% improvement, facial exercise results are off the charts. Furthermore I don't think the rest of the skin under the eye really liked this potion - what was a band of cross hatched lines has moved into a deep line.
But very nice really that the pics are so realistic, you don't get that very often. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:18 pm |
| I do see a difference in how much of the eyelid is exposed but no difference in lines or wrinkles. If anything I agree with Lotusester that the lines below the eye look worse. |
_________________
Everything has beauty but not everyone sees it |
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:43 pm |
| My question is how is the 68% determined? I think we might tend to think in terms of 100% being "back to perfect", but that can't possibly be how it is because there is no way that another 32% improvement is going to make that much difference. So I ask, what is this 68% OF? Is it some crazy hidden marketing statistic like the absolutely biggest improvement one could get from this product is x and this is 68% of x? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:48 pm |
I guess it's just a number someone thought up, because it's not like her eyelid is 68 percent on the mend, is it? At best it's now half way exposed, but no more than that.
But 68 percent SOUNDS like someone has been measuring carefully. It is a bit like prices that end on .99, to sound cheaper.
(But then, I don't believe a cream can actually lift muscle. So I am probably over-critical here). |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:35 pm |
There are so many marketing on the net on skin-care. Unless, I get real feedback from real people using them (say like EDS forum), I don't normally believe (or buy). Also, it will cost almost $1 per 1% improvement??? I think, I will stick to creams that I already tried....
I am not familiar with these ingredients... Anybody can disect the ingredients here. Is there a magic ingredient here you think???
Ingredients from the website
Aqua (Water), Cyclopentasiloxane, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Yeast Amino Acids, Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane, Butylene Glycol, Glycerin, Polysilicone-11, Aminobutyric Acid, Barium Sulfate, Cetyl Alcohol, Stearic Acid, Propanediol, Euglena Gracilis Extract, Glyceryl Stearate, PEG-100 Stearate, Tricalcium Phosphate, Dimethicone, Sodium Stearoyl Glutamate, Steareth-20, Tocopheryl Acetate, Cyclohexasiloxane, Portulaca Oleracea Extract, Panax Ginseng Root Extract, Centella Asiatica Extract, Sorbitan Laurate, Caffeine, Xanthan Gum, Morinda Citrifolia Extract, Zizyphus Jujuba Seed Extract, Hydroxyethylcellulose, Acetyl Dipeptide-1 Cetyl Ester, Phytoecdysteroids, Glaucium Flavum Leaf Extract, Disodium EDTA, Phenoxyethanol, Methylparaben, Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, Butyl-
paraben, Diazolidinyl Urea |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:18 pm |
| 4 parabens and Cyclopentasiloxane (right after water) is a silicone based emollient and solvent. I will have to say no thank you. |
_________________
Esthetician working at a Med-spa. Love the Clarisonic! |
|
|
|
|
Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:56 am |
I think I will pass. Also, I don't see any clinical trials done on this...
| LauraLizzie wrote: |
| 4 parabens and Cyclopentasiloxane (right after water) is a silicone based emollient and solvent. I will have to say no thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sun Sep 14, 2025 5:33 am |
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. |
|
 |
|
