A previous post on Jan Marini Eyelash Growth product prompted many comments. Most of the comments were anecdotal stories about how people used the product and were convinced that it was the greatest thing they’d ever tried. While reports from users are interesting, they aren’t “proof” that the product works. It’s a basic Beauty Brain belief.
“Anecdotal evidence does not prove anything”
This Beauty Brain remained highly skeptical in a way that would make my heroine Rebecca Watson proud.
But then the following comment was posted…
Hello Everyone,
I can`t stand the confusion anymore. Here is the scoop. The OLD Jan Marini eyelash product did indeed work. It had a DRUG in it for GLaucoma that had a known side effect of hair growth. A larger company already has a patent on it for this use. THAT IS THE REASON WHY IT WAS TAKEN OFF THE MARKET FOR MONTHS. Not surprisingly, the active secret ingredient was not disclosed on Jan Marini`s label. It did work however, so I hope that settles the confusion. People were using a DRUG!!!(for glaucoma)The NEW formulation does not have the drug in it. It was released last week. the new product probably will not work since there is nothing in it that can make eyelashes grow. The company is in fact writing letters to consumers telling them that the product is different. This is such a travesty. Thousands of people are waiting
for the back ordered product, and now they will be getting nothing. The public always loses. I guess it is very difficult to come up with a safe, cosmetic product that indeed makes eyelashes grow. So, the OLD JM EYElash did work for most people, and now that is GONE. The new one has no drug in it. We are too late to do any studies. Sorry!
I still remained skeptical but it prompted me to look into the claims and there just may be something to what this commenter said.
It turns out that in 2003, a group of dermatologist published a paper in the Dermatology Online Journal suggesting that a drug used for glaucoma (latanoprost) actually stimulated eyelash growth. This could be the basis for the Jan Marini eyelash product.
I was amazed that this could be true! It seems to me that this would’ve been HUGE news in the cosmetic business and the general public. But it went by without nearly a mention. Imagine the money this discovery could bring in!
Then I dug a little deeper and found out why the discovery likely passed unnoticed. Subsequent studies were not able to repeat what the original scientists demonstrated. According to these scientists in an article published in 2005 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, topical application of latanoprost was NOT EFFECTIVE.
Not having seen the original papers, I can’t say which research study is more believable. However, in terms of credibility, the American Academy of Dermatology is one of the premiere organizations in the area of dermatology so they win out there. Additionally, amazing claims like “Renews hair growth” require amazing proof. One paper in an online journal that can’t be reproduced by peers is hardly amazing proof.
Beauty Brains bottom line:
Jan Marini eyelash growth product could’ve been based on a drug used for glaucoma, and there is at least one study to back-up the use of that drug for eyelash growth. However, the work was not repeatable and we don’t know for certain that the Jan Marini product used the drug anyway! I continue to remain skeptical.
No cosmetic will make any of your hair grow.
ALERT: The story has been updated. Jan Marini Admits product will not re-grow eyelashes.
← Previous Comments
I have been using Revitalash since April (new formula) and I have to say that my lashes are dramatically longer. I am an educated professional (cenovis) and decided to try this product as my lashes were incredibly short and was contemplating getting eyelash extensions. I have the disposable income to not worry too much if it didn’t work so I gave it a shot and I am really happy that I did.
I now do not need to line my bottom lashes, they define my eyes without needing any extra help. My lashes do need a touch of mascara as the ends get a little lighter, but none the less it is a dramatic improvement.
I will probably have to buy this product for the rest of my life to maintain, but I am happy with the product and recommend it.
i love this ongoing debate, very interesting. the new jan marini does indeed have this glaucoma drug in it, but the labeling had to be changed. i suspect the drug is a variation on the origina formula. the revitalash also has a variation of this drug. i have just ordered the revitalash, i wil let you know how it goes. the drug is latanaprost or xylatan–i am not sure if it is the generic name, i looked up this med and the side effects (from medical studies) are indeed longer, thicker and more numerous eyelashes. darkening of the iris may also happen but i read somewhere that it may be caused by the glaucoma itself with the medicine. i hear that dermatologists and opthamologists are prescribing this medicine just for eyelash growth. (???)
There’s no proof that it has a glaucoma drug in it. If so, please provide the ingredient list. Where did you look up the side effects? What medical studies? We’ve searched and can’t find anything that says this product has been proven to help make eyelashes grow. Please enlighten.
well, i am a healthy 36 yo woman whose dermatologist prescribed this for eyelash growth, not as a result of chemo. and i feel like a complete fool after researching this. i should have known when i got home and saw that i am only to apply to my upper lids, when the before &after shots showed growth on the lower lids as well. so, why then do they show such drastic growth on the lower lids if you are not supposed to use it there???
my dr. told me i was going to love the results and i am now feeling played by my dr. and the beauty industry….again…
Hadley, it is recommended on the instructions that you use revitalash at night, so I put it on before I go to bed. So I guess it would spread to the lower lashes when you have your eyes shut or blink. It seems to be potent enough to work as my lower lashes are SO MUCH LONGER.
In fact, my eyebrow waxer has started to wax around my lower outer area around my eyes (something that he never did before and I have been going to him for 4 years). I tear up when I yawn, so I think it was mixing with my tears. I can’t say that is because of Revitalash, but like I said, he never had to do that before.
I have read this entire post and found not much more than I was already contemplating but was noticing that no one mentioned something straight off of the faq sheet on the revitalash site. The reason that I want to mention it is because it is what prompted me to start researching before purchase. Here’s what happened and what I noticed.
1. desperate for better lashes and ones that could handle everyday mascara use.
2. Found Revitalash but due to its price decided to look further before purchase.
3. read the ingredients
4. noticed “proprietary blend” and said hm.
5. read the faq sheet on their site and read the follwoing faq:
Some RevitaLash® users have reported a mild discoloration of the skin at the base of the eyelashes. If you notice such discoloration and it bothers you, please discontinue use of RevitaLash® Eyelash Conditioner.
Then I typed revitalash and steroid use into my google search bar. Why? because my mom has glaucoma in one eye and has been using what she calls “steroid drops” for a few years. We always joked around about how one eye had these long dark beautiful lashes. My mom has never worn maekup so it is very noticeable. We talked jokingly about putting the stuff on the other lid. However, the last year or so has changed this joke very much. Her eye is totally discolored and she looks like she has a black eye (like someone punched her); the lashes are indeed very long but the discoloration is terrible. Her doctor this is an unfortuinate side effect of the meds in some people. So I immediately wondered if the revitalash was using the saem steroid.
Seems after this post I ma fairly convinced by all of the anecdotal information that revitalash indeed does use a steroid and the side effect of that medication will work for some people.
This brings new questions to mind of course….
Thanks for your comments Sara. You make logical deductions but this isn’t proof that Revitalash is using steroids or that the product works at all. Anecdotal information doesn’t convince me at all.
i googled the words ‘latanprost’ and ‘eyelash growth studies’, and came up with this page:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00187577
which lead me to this page:
Clinical study proposal
and found study results that say there is ‘increase in eyelash number, length, thickness, curvature, and pigmentation’. there is a great deal more, try googling it yourself. if you google the newly listed chemical on the revitalash, you will see it is a prostaglandin.
here are the ingredients of the ‘new’ formulation (or the new repackaging) of the revialash.
Ingredients: Deionized water, Carboxymethyl-Cellulose Sodium, Sodium Chloride, Citric Acid, Dibasic, Sodium Phosphate, Benzalkonium Chloride, Panthenol ProVitamin B5, N-ethyl-9a, 11a, 15S-trihydroxy-17-phenyl-18, 19, 20-trinorprosta-5Z, 13E-dien-1-amide.
those last chemicals listed are the prostaglandin– which i read may be bitamaprost-a glaucoma drug (not sure if i spelled it correctly).
i do not understand why you could not find this info, i research everything i put on my face or in my body, and i have been looking into jan marini and revitalsh (that is how i found your site)out of curiosity. i really appreciate what your site is about, but it was not that hard to find this info myself. it is clear to me that the two eyelash growth products mentioned do indeed work, and that they contain prostaglandins, which must be listed clearly with the ingredients, and although i listed only two sites that have information about studies, there is more out there! can i have a job at thebeautybrains?? (LOL just kidding).
also–two weeks after starting revitalash use, there is an improvement in length. after 10 weeks i will send you one of my eyelashes so you can measure it. the average length of a human eyelash is 6mm, i have measured my longest lash at 9 mm (this after using products like talika, anastasia and mavala). i have not measured since revitalash. how did i measure? take a fallen eyelash (or pluck one) and use a thread to mark off the length with the curve, and measure. simple. i did not see my previous post listed about the sites i found that give study results, i guess you review the posts before you put them up, but just in case you did not get my post, let me know, i will send it again.
for some reason my post with links pointing to studies and results is not showing up, (i tried 3 times) and i do not have time to figure it out why right now (although i will tonight), you can try googling the words ‘prostaglandin eyelash growth studies’ or ‘latanaprost eyelash growth studies’ and you will see quite a few results that point to legit studies that show that prostaglandin, which is the main ingredient in revitalsh and jan marini, do indeed improve the increase in eyelash number, length, thickness, curvature, and pigmentation.
Hey Mamaboo. Thanks for the info.
I was wondering if (on behalf of those of us who who don’t have time or know how) could you please tell me if any of the studies you have found talk about the possibilities of the eyelid and iris darkening when using these medication for lash growth only. I have seen the studies that state that one of the side effects of the glaucoma meds is the darkening but I am trying to figure out before I buy it what chances one has of having this darkening when they aren’t putting it in their eye in larger doses. If you could see my mothers eye after years of use you would see why it scares me. And I do realize revitalash does say it can cause some darkening. I would just like to see what the chances of that lid darkening are and how severe they could become. I would also like to see more about the eye pressures from just applying it on the lid…although it goes to reason that if all glaucoma patients had to do was rub a little on thier lid they wouldn’t have to drop it in their eye (I know that reasoning is bad bad info no need to make a post regarding that). Also curious as to how much prostaglandin we would actually be getting in the revitalash in realstionship to a basic drop dosage.
I wish revitalash would come out of the closet and make this information available. I think it would be good to see their studies. Even though they aren’t fda approved I am sure they did testing to get the product that they have.
Mamaboo,
Thanks for the information. You do realize of course, that eyelashes grow whether you use these products or not. To do a proper comparison (to determine if the product is working for you) you’ll have to leave one eye untreated and the other eye treated.
The fact that your eyelashes are longer just proves what everyone already knows, eyelashes grow.
As far as the papers you site, the first one is a clinical trial, the results of which have not been published. The clinical trial was specifically for people with a disease and not “normal” people. Therefore, the whatever the results are do not necessarily apply to general consumers. Also, since the trial was completed over 1 year ago and no publication was made, it is most likely that they observed No Effect. Why else wouldn’t they have published something?
The other paper you site is from 1997 and may actually support the fact that these drugs work. But 10 years later there haven’t been any definitive positive studies despite the fact that at least one university conducted one. Makes this Beauty Brain suspicious.
There are not numerous other examples of peer reviewed research. Since anyone can write anything on the web, Google research is little more reliable than asking a friend.
Finally, if these products do work as you’ve suggested it would make them drugs. Using unregulated drugs on your body is just crazy. The side effects that Sara has noted are very real and dangerous.
Do you really want to risk your eyesight for this?
I wouldn’t.
I am consistently shocked at the misinformation regarding these over-the-counter eyelash products. Here are the facts as I have been able to research – feel free to check on my facts!
First, NONE of the OTC products contain active glaucoma drug, either latanoprost or bimatoprost. If you examine the chemical formulas of Jan Marini, Revitalash, etc., and compare them to the formulas for the REAL drugs listed on their Full Prescribing Information (available to everyone on either the Pfizer or Allergan websites), they do NOT match. Neither product contains active drug because they would be in violation of FDA laws.
Second, both latanoprost and bimatoprost are Prostaglandin F 2 alpha analogues. The definition of Prostaglandin is a group of hormone-like substances that participate in a wide variety of bodily functions, including smooth muscle relaxation and contraction, dilation and constriction of blood vessels, blood pressure control, and inflammation. For those of you whose labor was induced, a prostaglandin was probably administered. The definition of analogue is a substance that is similar but not identical to another. There are currently 9 different prostaglandin receptors on cells that have been identified.
Third, what is in the OTC products? They are called synthases, defined as any of various enzymes that catalyze the the synthesis of a substance. The best analogy I can apply here is to compare the OTC products to beer. While the glaucoma drugs latanoprost and bimatoprost are a Coors, Budweiser or Corona, the OTC products are O’Douls. They are quite literally “near beer”, not the real thing.
Additionally, a synthase causes a reaction, which can cause another reaction, which causes another, etc. Have you seen the commercial where a husband keeps flipping a light switch and the garage door on the house next door keeps going up and down? The same is true of the OTC products. Applying the real drug is a more direct route physiologically to getting the desired results of eyelash growth. This doesn’t mean that the OTC products do not work!
The FDA requires ALL side effects, whether occuring pre-or-post marketing to be reflected in the Full Prescribing information. The OTC products may have information, but they are not required by law to release any of it. Hence, the Prescribing Information for latanoprost MUST state that one of the side effects includes “increased length, thickness, pigmentation and the number of lashes or hairs” etc. The incidence of “pigmentation of the periocular skin” with bimatoprost is 3% to 10%. “Increased pigmentation of the iris” with latanoprost occurred in 5% to 15% of patients, 1% to 3% with bimatoprost. However, as compared to a lot of prescription drugs that millions of people take every day, these drugs are relatively benign – please consult full prescribing information and do not use if you are pregnant or trying to become pregnant!
If you want the real drug, by PRESCRIPTION ONLY, compounded into a topical gel (as opposed to an eyedrop), Luxette(TM) is available from Civic Center Pharmacy in Scottsdale, AZ. They are a compounding pharmacy – this means they cannot make any specific claims about hair growth (just like the OTC products)and they are not required to receive FDA approval for their compounds (any good compounding pharmacy use INGREDIENTS that are FDA approved).
Here are my research sources: Bimatoprost and Latanoprost Prescribing Information; Archives of Ophthalomology Vol 118, May 2000; Prostaglandin analogs for hair growth – great expectations; Pub Med article on Prostaglandin induced hair growth (Surv Ophthalmology August 2002 – 47Suppl 1:S 185-202 by MA Johnstone; http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/full/42/6/1134
By the way, a major pharmaceutical company has applied for a patent on using a topical prostaglandin F analogue for hair growth.
Rocky, thanks for the information. Very interesting.
Just one question. I could find no US trademark (uspto.gov) for Luxette and there is nothing on the Civic Center Pharmacy’s website about it. What is your source for this information?
As to the major pharmaceutical company, it looks like it is our good friends at P&G in conjunction with Duke University. Here are their patent applications…
Patent Applications
No surprise there.
Hi beautybrains,
I think I will just buy it and try to produce more “anecdotal” results. I remember once reading an article that was going over a bunch of “old wives tales” one in particular that I remember is that for a very long time gramma has been saying “go eat some chicken soup; it’ll make you feel better” and then it came to pass that an enzyme in chicken broth actually did some good to fight the common cold….of course this too is just more useless info unless I go out and research the topic…which I won’t be. I am going to go purchase a bottle of revitalash, give it a try, go to my eye doctor regularly, and see what happens. I am sure it will all get sorted out eventually. Meanwhile I will either have beautiful lashes or I will be on to the next thing. Thanks for your help.
thank you, thank you, thank you, rocky! your post was very informative, thanks for taking the time!. if i had the time yesterday, i would have also pointed out that there is probably not enough of these ‘prostaglandin drug variations’ in either the revitalash or marini products to really make a difference as far as the side effects like pigmentation, etc. i like your comparison using the beer! besides, the way you use revitalash and marini lash products, not much will get in the eye, but it is designed that some of it will. i would imagine that applying it to the eyelash base is like watering a telephone pole to make it grow. it will, however, get the active ingredient into the eye in small amounts by absorbtion through the mucous membrane and the tear ducts, which is the way the rx meds work, only they are delivered directly into the eye in much larger concentrations. if this stuff did makes lashes grow by applying it to the base or root, then everyone would be using it to grow hair on other places on the body (anyone have info about that?).
i also understand that the active ingredient is a just form of the prostaglandin, and if you notice, it is listed last. ingredients are listed according to amount, largest amounts listed first, lowest last.
as far as the studies i cited, that was just an example of the various studies i have read, i chose that one as an example because it came up first on google. my point was to show that there are indeed studies about the active ingredient really giving the intended results. many of the studies on the prescription meds do mention the darkening of skin and iris, which is unfortunate in your mother’s case, sara, but the question for her is this: is the medication taking care of the problem it was prescribed for? there always seems to be a trade off. i understand that other rx’s for glaucoma (non-protaglandin drugs) have worse side effects, and since your mom has been using her med for a very long time, the doctor should have noticed her particular side effects (and this irks me about some doctors and their prescribing habits). i truly feel bad for her.
speaking af prescribing habits of doctors, another point i wish to make is the fact that i know of cosmeticians who convince clients that these prescription medications for glaucoma are okay to use only for eyelash growth, and advise clients to use them – and go as far as refering people to doctors who will prescribe it for something other than glaucoma, and i think that is going way too far.
and yes, eyelashes get longer, but the problem is they fall out before they ever get much past 6mm, and so far these products get the lash to grow to a length much more than that before they fall out, and causes them to be more numerous, to be thicker, darker and curlier than they would be normally. it may not work for everyone, but for women who hate to wear mascara, who have very sparse or no lashes and non existent eyebrows (like a cancer patient) this could be a god-send.
this is not to say it is all good! these companies that make these claims really do need some intense scientific studies to back their claims, especially when they charge obscene amounts for such a tiny bit of product, (not to mention the questionability of the active ingredient). relying on past studies, and so few studies is just not enough. and those before and after pictures! anyone can see they are doctored, why do this? i actually saw one that was not even the same person’s eye in the ‘after shot’! this kind of poor advertising on a product (which have good testimonial)is just that, poor advertising! (note: the ads i have seen like this were for spas that sell the products mentioned) bad ads like this will lead you think the product is a scam!
thanks all for this lively discussion! it surely brightens my day to communicate with such intelligent individuals! a truly good scientist questions everything!
As a consumer tester, I was asked to test this product.
There are multiple issues here that need addressing. I must tell you that the vitriol of Left Brain has had some wonder if LB is being paid to dismiss the product out of hand.
The product doesn’t claim to regrow lashes that have fallen out and due to age, trauma, etc., not longer have a bulb in the eyelid. However, it does indicate that the lashes that are in the lid will grow longer, and that is for two reasons: one, the forumlation encourages growth, but also the eyelash is in the growth stage longer than normal. (Normally, an eyelash has x life expectancy before it falls out. Much like when woman are pregnant and their hair does not fall out and grows longer, the eyelash in in a longer growth phase before fallout.)
Due to stringent FDA guidelines, the company’s wording must be carefully constructed.
I can tell you that while testing a number of women, myself included, significant growth was noticed after three weeks. The growth was reflected in an overall longer length as opposed to a rapid “growth” spurt. The lashes grow to a longer length because they are in a longer growth phase, therefore overall women had longer lashes. For aging women, whose growth cycles becomes sluggish, this is a god send.
Additionally, Patricia Wexler, a reknowned dermatologist highly recommends the product, and being a doctor, would not make such claims liberally.
Has anyone from Beauty Brains bothered to contact Mark Marinovich of JM to obtain the clinical evidence. Additionally the same analog technology is being used by other companies as well (such technology administered via swabs).
The product worked so well that I contacted staff at the Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles to discuss the application of the product to children to speed eyelash growth, as this is one of the reasons children feel abnormal is the alopecia that occurs. In fact, JM product is considered potentially SO EFFECTIVE that it must be applied after any treatments, post-radiation/chemo, (as cancer is rapid irregular cell growth) .
Get the facts straight. You’re not going to have overnight rapid “Growth.” what you will have is that when lashes fall out, a lessened refractory period for the hair to start growing and lash that will be longer before fall out.
Additionally, when used on eyebrows with sparse areas of eyebrow growth, we found growth.
One of the thing people need to realize is that it requires constant application. It does not permanently change the lash growth.
Lastly, as my expertise is on not only efficacy but cost-effectiveness, if someone is spending $30 or more on a mascara (say a dept. store brand) that is used every day and need to be tossed for hygiene reasons once every three months, then the cost per use on JM products may actually be much less as a tube lasts when used correctly at least six months.
Thanks for you comments Brandi. I can assure you I’m not being paid to dismiss the product out of hand. Feel free to go back and read the rest of the comments before you make such judgments.
All I’ve done is to say the following.
1. There is scant real evidence that it works. Lots of anecdotes (your own included) but minimal scientific studies.
2. If the product does work as claimed, it is a DRUG. It would be ILLEGAL to sell as a cosmetic. It would be sold only by prescription by doctors.
Nothing you’ve said disputes these two facts.
Feel free to check the rest of the blog for articles about JM. Particularly the one where JM admits the product “…is not intended to stop, prevent, cure, relieve, reverse or reduce eyelash loss or to promote the growth of eyelashes”
“Not intended to promote the growth of eyelashes.” These are the company’s words, not mine.
Comments on this topic have been closed. If you’d like to talk about it further, go to our forums and have your say.
Jan Marini forum discussion
If you’re not a member of the forums, signing up is simple. Just click on the following link.
Join the Beauty Brains forum
We look forward to continuing the conversation.
← Previous Comments
{ 4 trackbacks }