| Author |
Message |
|
|
 |
Fri May 04, 2007 11:21 am  |
Anyone else in the UK listen to BBC Radio 4 programme called "You and Your's" today?
They had a feature about the massive queues outside many Boots stores for the new stock of Protect Serum on the shelves today, they did a vox pop on a few people who were also queuing up for it and then asked them if they were aware that it was Boots itself who had funded the research. Many were not aware as the Horizon programme had not revealed it properly. They questioned the professor at Manchester University about the research and he said Boots had approached them and asked them to blind test several moisturizers all of which were Boots lotions. The interviewer stopped him at this point and asked what the other products were and he claimed that it was just bland moisturisers that were being compared with the Boots serum. The professor said that yes, although changes were seen in skin elasticity under the microscope, whether or not any clinical changes could be seen with the naked eye was yet to be tested. The interviewer then said so if another company like Estee Lauder or Clinique approached you the same sort of results might be seen under the microscope to which he agreed there could well be.
So although the Protect serum works well against the control subject of a bog standard moisturizer it was not being tested against any of the other 'big guns' serums of the cosmetic world.
Kind of puts a different complexion on it doesn't it? You can probably view this interview on the Radio 4 website. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fri May 04, 2007 12:41 pm |
| Thanks so much for sharing this info Camelia! I've been hoping that further evidence would surface surrounding the Boots study and whether or not the hype over this serum is legitimate or simply 'purchased'. This confirms my suspicions and I will definitely not be tempted to try it now. I also read that the SAP (vitamin c) used in this serum is not nearly as effective as MAP. And that even if MAP was used in this product (which is isn't) it would have to be in a concentration of at least 5% to have any true effectiveness. I cannot believe that people are foolishly investing 100 quid on eBay for this weakling of a serum - this is daft!!! |
_________________
Fair with mild rosascea & combination skin (dry with oily t-zone) |
|
|
|
|
Fri May 04, 2007 12:47 pm |
| Thanks so much for info as people here in Ireland have gone crazy looking for this serum. Did wonder when I saw it in the paper after the Horizon programme did boots have anything to do with the research. Did not see the show but heard that they said that big names and very expensive creams had not as much effect as this 25euro serum. They will rake in the money!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri May 04, 2007 1:38 pm |
| You're right Boots are making a fortune, they said something like they're producing per day what they would have been previously producing over a 3 week period! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fri May 04, 2007 4:16 pm |
Not specific to this Boots product, but FYI the funding for about 90% of studies are by companies themselves. People complain about this for clinical drug tests, but the truth is, if the companies werent paying for it very few studies could be done, and no studies would equal no new medications.
Just because they paid for the study that in and of itself doesnt mean its biased if they have stastical numbers and other data to back it up. Im not sure what actual testing they can due by a microscope other than look and feel though. |
_________________
31yo, student, fair and dry skin. |
|
|
|
|
Fri May 04, 2007 4:28 pm |
I checked out a local (fairly local) Target today 'cause I was curious about this line. They had a whole aisle dedicated to it! I didn't realize how inexpensive it was either. The Protect & Restore (Renew? forget now) Serum was only $14.99.
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 May 04, 2007 9:04 pm |
Yes Arielle, I suspected that the funding was probably by Boots too but the point made in the interview is that it wasn't made patently clear in the Horizon programme and the general public are not always aware of this.
Secondly, who knows maybe any skincare serum would have good results compared to a very basic moisturiser! |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri May 04, 2007 9:38 pm |
| Sorry, I meant to type Anixia not Arielle regarding the funding post above! |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri May 04, 2007 10:10 pm |
There are likely to be more articles about the Boots funding in the British papers this weekend. Here is an excellent one published today in The Guardian.
It discusses what actually occurred in the trials, how many people were tested, the time period and most importantly the faults of study! In the last paragraph the writer asks why more cosmetic companies don't submit their creams for research, you can guess the answer why or view the article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2073126,00.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 2:50 am |
Thanks for this information. I am totally not surprised by it. Boots No7 line is just not that great. It's fine, but it's not that good.
And the ingredients werent that good either.
Such clever PR.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 5:35 am |
| I tried the product, there is nothing special about it,its another big ripoff,save your $$$$ |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 6:06 am |
| There was an enormous, specially dedicated and cordoned-off queue in Boots this morning, and they were giving out numbered tickets to allocate the serum. It's like some kind of mass hysteria. I suspect quite a few people may have been buying to re-sell on eBay. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 7:04 am |
In my local Boots this morning they had a special stand for the Protect and Perfect serum, and what looked like a load of extra sales assistants to help hold back the hordes. It was kind of busy, but they seemed to have plenty left. I thought about getting one to flog on Ebay, but I reckon the madness is bound to die down soon  ! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 7:52 am |
I don't understand why Camelia is reporting this info as if it's scandalous....
99% of the time, when the results of a clinical study are reported, it is the company itself that has done the study. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't undermine the validity of the study. They'd be stupid to screw around with the reported results. I think the important thing, if you really are concerned, is to look at the protocol used to make sure that it has investigated whatever particular issue you happen to be interested in. It's to the advantage of the company to run a clinical test before they bring a product to market. I've been involved in clinical studies for a few companies in the past, and it is very often the case that they make changes in their formulas based on preliminary results, etc.
The fact is, nobody is going to spend the money for clinical trials of a commercial product except the developer of the product. The only time you will see a completely independant test is when it is done for a particular ingredient or, of course, when it's for a pharmaceutical, in which case it's mandated by law.
I don't know anything about the product in question, but I think it's very naive to be all shocked that they were the ones who ran the trials. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 1:43 pm |
| Well katee, I haven't said that it's scandalous, I'm saying that it hasn't been made clear to the general public. If this wasn't a talking point the radio and general media wouldn't be reporting it. I thought it would nice to bring a bit of information to the posters on here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 3:50 pm |
| The radio and general media often make issues where they don't exist, at least imho |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 4:17 pm |
katee, a few points:
1) If you had read my post before your's, you would have understood that I was discussing the protocol of the Boots study, that is what The Guardian article link referred to. The title may have suggested that I was merely alerting others to the source of the funding but it encompassed a wry look at the hysteria surrounding it, 4 women discussing their opinions after testing it for a few weeks and the protocol of the study!
2)The Guardian article addresses important points of the study, for example, the fact that the Protect serum was only tested on 9 volunteers' arms for only 12 days. There are people who didn't watch the Horizon programme and are unaware of this and would be interested in this information being they spend $ on it. The arm skin is not the same as the skin on the face and the number of volunteers is (proportionately)a very small sample.
3) Although clinical research testing different brands of cosmetics is rare, there are occasions in which hundreds of people are asked to blind test different brands of cream and give their opinions on its efficacy;one such study is Beauty Bible.
4)It is hardly surprising to those who have knowledge of clinical research that Boots had funded the study, perhaps the irony in my title was lost! My point was that had it been clearly stated in the Horizon programme, the public interest in the serum wouldn't have been nearly so strong. It seems even the BBC researchers for the programme are dumbing down by not relaying facts clearly! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 4:22 pm |
| righty ho, yep the media always know how to whip up a frenzy. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 5:41 pm |
| Ahhh we agree ! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 6:22 pm |
Camellila - thanks for your input.
I knew nothing of this 'wonder' serum until I saw it mentioned on a newscast about an hour ago. It featured the frenzy in a London Boots outlet and mentioned the price.
Immediately, knowing nothing other than the price, I was suspicious. Even if a scientist somewhere developed an incredibly effective formula that outperformed everything else available, no major commercial outlet would ever sell it so cheaply. Certainly not at a time when the baby boom generation is aging. Just tooooooo tempting to charge at least triple what Boots is charging and make guzzillions more.
Vit C serums are a perfect example, very cheap to make, but not cheap to buy.
This product will likely experience the life span of cold fusion...when you're at the top of the mountain, there's no place to go but down. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 6:25 pm |
| i just use several this brand products, i think the moisturing mask and eye makeup remover is good for the price. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 8:32 pm |
| Thanks for your replies, yes time will tell whether shoppers remain loyal to the Boots serum. None of the Boots No.7 products are bad, I just don't see it as a wonder product. If people are still raving about it by August, I'll buy a bottle and see for myself. At the moment, the mass hysteria is just a big turn off for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 05, 2007 8:37 pm |
| All I can tell you is I won't be repurchasing Boots #7. The one I got from Target even got returned. There's no way I'd wait in line to buy that thing. There's also no way I'd spend $150 on it. I'd rather make my own serum and cream. I guess those women are desperate and aren't EDS members. |
|
|
|
|
| Fri Feb 21, 2025 6:44 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. |
|
 |
|
