| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:03 am  |
Hi everyone! 
On the SkinActives board someone wrote this:
| Quote: |
Finally, because of FDA regulations, Jan Marini has indicated exactly what IS their eyelash growth factor.
Their eyelash growth factor is: 7-(3,5-dihydroxy-2-3-hydroxy-4-(3-(triflormethyl) phenoxyl)-1butenyl) cyclopentyl)-, N-ethyl, (1R-(alpha(Z), 2beta(1E,3R*), 3alpha, 5alpha))
Now I have no idea what that chemically is, maybe that is KGF? Hannah, please explain.
[Note: This eyelash growth factor has worked on 95% of people's eyelashes, I have never read a bad review so I'm thinking it's pretty credible.] |
I this old news?
Hannah goes on to say she has no idea what the ingredients mean, but maybe someone here can translate? 
Have a nice day! |
_________________
*`~~ combo skin, 27, ~still learning  ~~`* |
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:16 pm |
Here's an update from Hannah at the SkinActives boards:
| Quote: |
Fortunately, I have genius friends (thanks, Miguel!) who can guess what a chemical is even when the name is cut by half and with typos. We leave it to your imagination why Jan Marini people cannot transcribe the name of a chemical on the label.
The complete name is
propan-2-yl 7-[3,5-dihydroxy-2-[3-hydroxy-4-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-but-1-enyl]
-cyclopentyl]hept-5-enoate
If it does not mean anything to you, that is perfectly fine. But it connects with the previous posting: this is the chemical of the glaucoma prescription medication, Travroprost. I have no idea how Jan Marini got permission to use a prescription medication in a cosmetic. |
I find it quite interesting...do you think it's true? JM Eyelash serum worked well for me, but I was curious about the 'secret ingredient'- turns out it's the glaucoma medication? Or a component of it?
 |
_________________
*`~~ combo skin, 27, ~still learning ~~`* |
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:59 pm |
The person to ask might be carekate. The actual name they meant to give is travoprost.
I have been too nervous about this prostaglandin analog business to consider trying this or revitalash yet. Did it make you grow NEW eyelashes? That sounds pretty radical. Maybe when people say that they are talking about baby hairs that were made bigger and stronger...? Do they shrink if someone stops using the stuff?
Is it actually possible for someone to develop a new follicle, hair and/or hair muscle in adulthood? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:22 pm |
How seedy of Jan Marini...
they're forced to list the ingredient so they list it with obvious errors and mistakes, so that it's impossible to tell what it is.
I ran it through a few university/government chemical databases and didn't get any hits. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:27 pm |
| No, edenfield -- the mistake was in that other forum. The JM revelation was probably accurate and correct. (Not that that *fully* erases the seediness...) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:32 pm |
 m, maybe someone should post the revelation on all the skincare boards so that their seediness is exposed. It is such a high profile product so it would be picked up by the media soon enough ... |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:43 pm |
| all I care about is the FDA going to pull the product again? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:44 pm |
| ...and what does this precedent mean for Revitalash? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:46 pm |
| lucyluc wrote: |
| all I care about is the FDA going to pull the product again? |
They would have to get wind of it first, via a formal complaint, or a media report. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:12 pm |
| alibabka wrote: |
| No, edenfield -- the mistake was in that other forum. The JM revelation was probably accurate and correct. (Not that that *fully* erases the seediness...) |
Nah, someone posted it in full in a thread here and I used that one (this was a while ago)...I even asked my chemistry professor, he said that it was just wrong (as in not properly written) and I wouldn't ever be able to find out what it was.
However if you put it into google scholar, it does return studies for PROSTAGLANDINS! (even though none match the exact chemical formula) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:17 pm |
Oh, OK. This Hannah's friends seem to have zeroed in on the substance, but either they or she misspelled it. So, after I pointed that out, I thought that you were misunderstanding who made *that* mistake.
I am recalculating my seediness assessment.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:17 pm |
| oops, no message |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:21 pm |
All this suggests very strongly that there is a breach of law here; if they say the active ingredient in an eyelash product is say, "xyz123", and "xyz123" is non-existent or is simply and quite deliberately not the right name for it, then it is deceptive and misleading conduct, and misrepresentation to boot.
I used to work in the regulatory department of an awful unethical BIG corporation in Sydney that had the resources to spend millions of dollars each year on fancy schmancy lawyers to defend their unethical actions against the charges of the consumer and competition watchdog. Consequently, I got to know the trade practices laws quite well.
Regulations like this exist globally, and are vigorously fought over in the first world nations. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:25 pm |
The time to invest in black market glaucoma drugs is...
NOW! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:27 pm |
| alibabka wrote: |
| ......black market glaucoma drugs ..... |
Shudder, shudder |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:33 pm |
| Rogaine is an example of a prescription drug (minoxidil) that moved to over-the-counter (non-prescription) status for topical use. So that is not illegal or unheard of. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:37 pm |
| BBD wrote: |
| Rogaine is an example of a prescription drug (minoxidil) that moved to over-the-counter (non-prescription) status for topical use. So that is not illegal or unheard of. |
I am all for safe, fully-tested, innovative new uses of existing products, and I agree it is not illegal if there is full disclosure, and they were not deceptive, misleading or misrepresenting the ingredients or the sources of the ingredients in any way.
There appears to be some question marks over how or whether the Jan Marini product has trod this course. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:47 pm |
| nyonyakay wrote: |
I am all for safe, fully-tested, innovative new uses of existing products, and I agree it is not illegal if there is full disclosure, and they were not deceptive, misleading or misrepresenting the ingredients or the sources of the ingredients in any way.
There appears to be some question marks over how or whether the Jan Marini product has trod this course. |
I am very uncomfortable with Jan Marini's sneakiness. That's just me... |
_________________
Simple but No Simplier...Approaching late 20s, Normal/Combination Skin, Rarely Breakout now but have some old acne marks, sunspots, & broken caps |
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:57 pm |
| BBD wrote: |
| Rogaine is an example of a prescription drug (minoxidil) that moved to over-the-counter (non-prescription) status for topical use. So that is not illegal or unheard of. |
That is a genuinely heartening thought, but I have two thoughts in response:
1) That transition has not happened yet in the case of this drug, and
2) We're talking about our *eyes*!
Further to 2), I still don't understand the "new eyelashes" aspect of JM/Revitalash. I have already been playing with my own eyelids trying to put on them the various things that supposedly make Talika Lipolcils effective, and I have Mavala and my own Polish lash tint powder, just ordered Ardell, am eyeing Dreamlash, 1000 hour, Swiss O Par and am watching cautiously for the arrival of carekate's approximation (including ingredients andprice), so I am emotionally very much WITH the JM and Revita- users, but... back to 2)... |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:45 pm |
come on I find it hard to believe they lied to the FDA they know eventually it will boomerang on them. Gosh  wonder if I should stock up on 3 year supply before it gets pulled again! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:03 pm |
| lucyluc wrote: |
| ....wonder if I should stock up on 3 year supply before it gets pulled again! |
What? Are you saying that Jan Marini had to pull products off the market for infringements in the past? And they haven't learned from it? They are sounding worse and worse than I thought. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:31 pm |
| the beauty brains are a bunch of snobby idiots that dont believe anything except of course that they are all geniuses. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:32 pm |
| lucyluc wrote: |
| the beauty brains are a bunch of snobby idiots that dont believe anything except of course that they are all geniuses. |
I am genuinely sorry to hear that. Is this a value judgement or have they been personally unkind to you? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:36 pm |
| I have to say I am very pleased with JM. I no longer have to wear mascara and for special occasions when I do my eyes really stand out.It has saved me a lot of time applying mascara and of course taking it off was a real timewaster too so I feel for the time saved applying and taking off mascara this product is well worth it and is the best beauty trick I know of ever.,nothing makes a woman look more beautiful than thick long natural lashes.We all pick our own poison;I like JM and botox, I know there may be consequences I dont care, I want the freedom to be able to purchase it without govt interference. |
|
|
|
|
| Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:00 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. |
|
 |
|
