Rapidlash
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Products Reviews Forum

free skin care · Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:15 am

This serum is working so well for me and it does not irritate my eye lids. My lashes are not thicker or darker, just longer.

I started off using PSF Prolatogen. This did give me a little boost to the length of my lashes. I was basically pleased with it. My Mom has been using RapidLash on her brows with success so I decided to buy a tube when my bottle of PSF ran out since its cheaper.

I really didn't expect to get any more length but I did. I'm sure my results are not comparable to Lattise but I'm happy and thats all that matters Very Happy

I had previously posted that while using PSF the lashes on my left side were noticeable longer then my right. I started apply to my left side every other use and it has balanced out.

Definitely shop around if you are going to buy this. I see prices from $50 to $25. I get it from amazon for around $25.

free skin care · Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:26 am

I have tried rapidlash as well, and yes, it does work and it's also great value for money compared to the more expensive alternatives out there.

free skin care · Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:06 am

Rapidlash is my holy grail!
I must have gotten at least 50% growth on my lashes on rapidlash (in a month or so!)!

I cannot wear my glasses anymore when I have mascara on... its insane! Because I keep feeling my lashes touch the lens when I blink!

This is my second tube in 2 years... I had a 6 months break between the two tubes. I found that the second time around worked much better!! and the only thing different is that I am currently using SkinBiology's CP serum in my daily routine... I am thinking the CP boosted the effect of the Rapidlash!

I keep getting asked if I had fake lashes on! and i am asian (known for short stubby lashes)... isn't this great? a lash enhancer that works at a relatively reasonable price!

I highly recommend!!!

free skin care · Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:34 pm

Ladies reading,
please be careful.
Rapidlash contains, if not a "prostaglandin-analogue" then a "prostaglandin-analogue-analogue," meaning a chemical related to the kind in Latisse.

If you have eyes that are not brown or black, you could be risking a change in your eye color -- including a change resulting in asymmetric eye coloration.

I have seen an internet post by someone claiming to have experienced this from RL. It could be some fraudulent internet BS, but it was enough to scare me away.

Tue May 03, 2011 3:47 pm

ok, my first post as a newb, I have cataracts (55yo)and have artificial lens as I really need to be able to see clearly for my job. Thankfully, I only tried it on one eye, it damaged the lens and now will have to replace it. Not good as there will now be additional scar tissue on your eye. I did not check/read to see if that was a prob...never occurred to me to:(

free skin care · Wed May 04, 2011 6:14 am

I think there is a potential risk with any of the eye lash growth serums that actually work. I would definitely not use any of them if you have any eye issues.

I do have light color eyes but have not had any issues with Rapid Lash.

free skin care · Wed May 04, 2011 7:17 am

Wow I never knew these serums were so dangerous... I think I would much rather put on fake lashes or wear mascara than risk any injuries to my eyes

Wed May 04, 2011 8:13 am

lol, well,the "artificial lens is afterall not organic and can be affected by chemicals...I was just really looking forward to having nice lashes as my thyroid does not allow for them!

free skin care · Sun May 15, 2011 8:39 am

Has Rapidlash again been reformulated based on the letter they received from the FDA asking them to remove the chemical that isopropyl cloprostenate - (synthetic prostaglandin analog)? I will not buy again if they remove the active chemical.

free skin care · Mon May 16, 2011 4:36 am

The letter was just issued a few weeks ago. I dought any changes have yet been made yet but we can expect that changes will be made.

Tue May 17, 2011 2:09 pm

bordnfl2 wrote:

Has Rapidlash again been reformulated based on the letter they received from the FDA asking them to remove the chemical that isopropyl cloprostenate - (synthetic prostaglandin analog)? I will not buy again if they remove the active chemical.

So far, no. I was emailing them this week trying to figure out if isopropyl cloprostenate is a prostaglandin analogue since I cannot use them. They confirmed TODAY they use isopropyl cloprostenate but would only say that it is "a fatty acid derivative with cell renewing and healing properties" & that "Rapid Lash is paraben free", nothing about if it's a prostaglandin analogue. Even though I told them I would likely go blind if I used a prostaglandin product. I found the FDA warning letter online while waiting for their response, and the FDA states that "Isopropyl cloprostenate is a synthetic prostaglandin analog in the same class of compounds as the active ingredients in FDA-approved drugs indicated to lower intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients". They basically just gave me the runaround. I wouldn't trust this company AT ALL. To qualify, I'll bet the product works; the prostaglandin lash enhancers do. They are potentially both helpful and dangerous. I am just furious because I have been looking for prostaglandin-free lash enhancers because I'm a really, really bad candidate and cannot afford to take the risk and I nearly tried their product: their ingredients list, website and customer service all obfuscate that Rapidlash contains a prostaglandin analogue. Unfortunately it seems like you need a degree in chemistry these days to find out what you're really using.

If you like Rapidlash & don't have a problem with the prostaglandins, then you really don't have a reason to switch up. But if you are avoiding prostaglandins, I'd stay away from them even if they do reformulate. Because I'd bet good money that they would just come up with ANOTHER prostaglandin analogue and claim it is "a fatty acid derivative with cell renewing and healing properties".

Tue May 17, 2011 4:40 pm

It worked for a couple months then my lashes started falling out which is really really inconvenient since I don't wear mascara. My lashes grew back to normal, but yeah, I would avoid this stuff.

free skin care · Wed May 18, 2011 5:23 am

Debora wrote:

They confirmed TODAY they use isopropyl cloprostenate but would only say that it is "a fatty acid derivative with cell renewing and healing properties" & that "Rapid Lash is paraben free", nothing about if it's a prostaglandin analogue.

They do list this on the ingredients so they are not hiding the fact they use it. BUT If it does have potential side effects it should be listed as such. Its not worth potential harm to anyone. I do agree you need to be a chemist sometimes!

It would not surprise me at all that this is a derivative of sorts of prostaglandin because I've gotten amazing results from it.

Quote:

....I have been looking for prostaglandin-free lash enhancers...

Take a look at this product by PSF. It maybe what you are looking for. I did use PSF prior to rapid lash, I did get a tiny bit of growth but nothing really noticeable.
http://www.essentialdayspa.com/psf-prolatogen-eyelash-en-p_12133.htm

Wed May 18, 2011 6:50 am

Hi Girliegirl,

No, they weren't hiding the fact that they use isopropyl cloprostenate; they wouldn't answer if it's a prostagandin analogue. The obfuscation is what got me upset. I was reading conflicting things about IC online: some sources state that it is a prostaglandin, but other sources don't. For instance the Dermstore says RapidLash is prostaglandin-free. I was trying to find a definitive answer, so I figured try RapidLash - a mistake, they wouldn't answer a direct question. I got the definitive answer I want from the FDA letter though.

Thanks for the tip on PSF, I'll try it if I don't like Mavala and Ardell.

free skin care · Wed May 18, 2011 10:02 am

I totally understand that is frustrating.

I will be interested to read rapidlash's response to the FDA.

free skin care · Wed May 18, 2011 4:26 pm

Thanks for all the information, Debora. I really appreciate all the investigative research that you did.

free skin care · Wed May 18, 2011 6:31 pm

Debora wrote:

Hi Girliegirl,

No, they weren't hiding the fact that they use isopropyl cloprostenate; they wouldn't answer if it's a prostagandin analogue. The obfuscation is what got me upset. I was reading conflicting things about IC online: some sources state that it is a prostaglandin, but other sources don't. For instance the Dermstore says RapidLash is prostaglandin-free. I was trying to find a definitive answer, so I figured try RapidLash - a mistake, they wouldn't answer a direct question. I got the definitive answer I want from the FDA letter though.

Thanks for the tip on PSF, I'll try it if I don't like Mavala and Ardell.

If it doesn't use an analogue, what does it use to induce hair growth?

Tue May 24, 2011 9:02 am

oasisjc wrote:

If it doesn't use an analogue, what does it use to induce hair growth?

Maybe someone else knows more about this but honestly, I think that Mavala Double Lash & Ardell condition and nourish the lashes rather than chemically stimulate hair growth. From what I've read online, Mavala is made in Switzerland and it's illegal to use chemicals in beauty products there, so it doesn't contain any drugs. It does have B vitamins, while Ardell has castor oil which is supposed to help hair growth. Mavala has gotten great reviews on MUA & other places online but not EDS; Ardell has gotten a number of positive reviews too - including EDS. They're both incredibly cheap compared to the competition, so they seem like a good entrance-level experiment. I figure with these all-natural (or at least drug-free) products you have to adjust your expectations; it's highly unlikely you're going to get that fake-lash look you get with Latisse. But I'll take any increase that isn't risky. And I figure there will probably be more trial & error involved with the drug-free products; what works for you will depend more on your body's unique chemistry, what it needs & what a particular product is supplying rather than on a sure-fire drug.

I've been using both Mavala and Ardell for almost 2 weeks, but I have to admit I haven't been completely consistent in application. I've had no irritation at all, and there is a slight increase in length. So I'll stick with it for a while.

free skin care · Fri May 27, 2011 3:07 am

I'm using Rapidlash right now and getting good results. In the past, I've tried Careprost (ggod results but had shedding) and Prolatogen (negligble results).

The active in Rapidlash is a prostaglandin analogue and that's why it works.

free skin care · Fri May 27, 2011 1:45 pm

earlybroncogirl wrote:

lol, well,the "artificial lens is afterall not organic and can be affected by chemicals...I was just really looking forward to having nice lashes as my thyroid does not allow for them!

Are you referring to a lens implant? I am considering this procedure. I don't have cataracts but I am tired of using contacts for presbyopia all the time. I also use RL (with Careprost every other day). I will investigate further as this does not sound like a desirable side effect!

free skin care · Sat May 28, 2011 4:28 pm

earlybroncogirl wrote:

ok, my first post as a newb, I have cataracts (55yo)and have artificial lens as I really need to be able to see clearly for my job. Thankfully, I only tried it on one eye, it damaged the lens and now will have to replace it. Not good as there will now be additional scar tissue on your eye. I did not check/read to see if that was a prob...never occurred to me to:(

That is scary.
Does the Rapidlash site actually say anything about about using w artificial lens.
If not I would contact a lawyer, esp if you have proof this is the only different things you used.

For eyelash stuff I have only tried Mavala Double Lash.
It works ok, doesn't really make lashes longer,but I found if you wear mascara your lashes feel conditioned with it after and less dry.
it just contains some vitamins in it...kind of like hair conditioner but for lashes...

The Mavala double lash- I haven't used that in at least 2 years as it is not sold near me...and I'm bad with remembering to use it.
But it seems that one they claim it is a "eyelash conditioner".
-I remember it did seem to make my lashes stronger though.

free skin care · Sat May 28, 2011 8:08 pm

I purchased RapidLash yesterday and used it for the first time last night - I had no irritation at all. I previously tried Careprost but had an allergic reaction to that so presumed it was to the prostagandin analogue.

Now, looking at the RapidLash ingredients, I don't see isopropyl cloprostenate - so this could be the new formula and the reason I didn't get any irritation.

free skin care · Sun May 29, 2011 8:45 am

Keliu wrote:

Now, looking at the RapidLash ingredients, I don't see isopropyl cloprostenate - so this could be the new formula and the reason I didn't get any irritation.

That would be really fast if a new formula is out already. This FDA warning was only issued about 6 weeks ago. They still list isopropyl cloprostenate on their web site.

According to the FDA letter they are also going to have to change their claims/advertising. It doesn't appear they have done that. I think Rapid lash only had 10 days to respond. I wish their response was available to read.

free skin care · Sun May 29, 2011 8:57 am

Mine (Canadian) appears not to have it either...

GirlieGirl wrote:

Keliu wrote:

Now, looking at the RapidLash ingredients, I don't see isopropyl cloprostenate - so this could be the new formula and the reason I didn't get any irritation.

That would be really fast if a new formula is out already. This FDA warning was only issued about 6 weeks ago. They still list isopropyl cloprostenate on their web site.

According to the FDA letter they are also going to have to change their claims/advertising. It doesn't appear they have done that. I think Rapid lash only had 10 days to respond. I wish their response was available to read.

free skin care · Sun May 29, 2011 9:08 am

I wonder if they have different formula's for different countries? I bought some last week or the week before and it still contained isopropyl cloprostenate.

Antonia wrote:

Mine (Canadian) appears not to have it either...

GirlieGirl wrote:

Keliu wrote:

Now, looking at the RapidLash ingredients, I don't see isopropyl cloprostenate - so this could be the new formula and the reason I didn't get any irritation.

That would be really fast if a new formula is out already. This FDA warning was only issued about 6 weeks ago. They still list isopropyl cloprostenate on their web site.

According to the FDA letter they are also going to have to change their claims/advertising. It doesn't appear they have done that. I think Rapid lash only had 10 days to respond. I wish their response was available to read.

Automatic Message

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.