Comments on: 3 Reasons To Be Suspicious of IS Clinical http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/10/17/3-reasons-to-be-suspicious-of-is-clinical/ Cosmetic chemists answer your beauty product questions! We are a group of cosmetic scientists who understand what the chemicals used in cosmetics really do, how products are tested, and what all the advertising means. Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:28:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Lindsay http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/10/17/3-reasons-to-be-suspicious-of-is-clinical/comment-page-1/#comment-35627 Lindsay Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:10:07 +0000 http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/10/17/3-reasons-to-be-suspicious-of-is-clinical/#comment-35627 I have been using this product for one month now. I?however was lucky enough to have gotten it for free. A local "clinical" spa was giving a deal. You get a cehmical peel for $100 AND. $100 worth of IS Clinical stuff. So I went. I have never gotten a chemical peel before and I enjoyed that. Them I sat down with a sales lady in a medical coat who told me all about the products. I ended up getting the active serum and cleanser for a total of $100. My entire credit. I was happy about the free stuff The lady told me to stop using my benzol peroxide pads and just try this stuff. Sue said BOTH would dry out my skin. So that's what I did. I use active serum and cleanser every morning and night. I also got free samples of their moisturizer. So about one month later and my breakouts have never been worse. I have been holding on to some miracle because of the reviews on other sites, but I'm pretty sure that those reviews were written by a sales person of IS or some reseller. So the stuff FEELS like it's working when you put it on. It burns a little but kinda feels good. While it's burningbthe skin feels tight, but as SOON as that goes away (about 3 minutes) you just feel grease!! It is a serum and it IS greasy!!!!!! So in my opinion, it sucks and I'm glad I didn't pay for it. If you want a cOMPLETE review feel free to email me. I want to try it WITH the benzol peroxide to see if it helps in that way. I just am having a hard time believing that sooo many people say it's great, and it just sucks for me On another note, the hydrator is AWESOME!! I have super oily skin, but I néed moisturizer arount my eyes because I do t want wrinkles. This stuff is awesome. Active serum is crap. Email me at Lindsay@webdesignforidiots.net I have been using this product for one month now. I?however was lucky enough to have gotten it for free. A local “clinical” spa was giving a deal. You get a cehmical peel for $100 AND. $100 worth of IS Clinical stuff. So I went. I have never gotten a chemical peel before and I enjoyed that. Them I sat down with a sales lady in a medical coat who told me all about the products. I ended up getting the active serum and cleanser for a total of $100. My entire credit. I was happy about the free stuff

The lady told me to stop using my benzol peroxide pads and just try this stuff. Sue said BOTH would dry out my skin. So that’s what I did. I use active serum and cleanser every morning and night. I also got free samples of their moisturizer.

So about one month later and my breakouts have never been worse. I have been holding on to some miracle because of the reviews on other sites, but I’m pretty sure that those reviews were written by a sales person of IS or some reseller.

So the stuff FEELS like it’s working when you put it on. It burns a little but kinda feels good. While it’s burningbthe skin feels tight, but as SOON as that goes away (about 3 minutes) you just feel grease!! It is a serum and it IS greasy!!!!!!

So in my opinion, it sucks and I’m glad I didn’t pay for it.

If you want a cOMPLETE review feel free to email me. I want to try it WITH the benzol peroxide to see if it helps in that way. I just am having a hard time believing that sooo many people say it’s great, and it just sucks for me

On another note, the hydrator is AWESOME!! I have super oily skin, but I néed moisturizer arount my eyes because I do t want wrinkles. This stuff is awesome. Active serum is crap.

Email me at
Lindsay@webdesignforidiots.net

]]> By: carrie b http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/10/17/3-reasons-to-be-suspicious-of-is-clinical/comment-page-1/#comment-23720 carrie b Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:59:17 +0000 http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/10/17/3-reasons-to-be-suspicious-of-is-clinical/#comment-23720 Does it bother me? Heck yes it bothers me! What really ticks me off is that they get away with it. And why--and how do they get away with it? Isn't it unlawful for a product to use deliberately false statements or deception in order to get people to buy it? Referring back to what you wrote on Garnier Nutritioniste Ultra-Lift: that NAD (National Advertising Division, part of the Council of Better Business Bureaus) "asked L'Oreal to modify or discontinue certain claims for Nutritioniste Ultra Lift and Skin Renew products" because L'Oreal can't support what they say the products do. So, if the NAD blew the whistle on L'Oreal's Nutritioniste Ultra Lift and Skin Renew products, why aren't more whistles being blown on other companies doing the same thing? Shouldn't the NAD or FDA be more on top of these swindlers? It's not like the average person just has money to burn. I'm VERY grateful for the Beauty Brains - setting the record straight on so many products trying to "sell us a bag of goods". Does it bother me? Heck yes it bothers me! What really ticks me off is that they get away with it. And why–and how do they get away with it? Isn’t it unlawful for a product to use deliberately false statements or deception in order to get people to buy it?

Referring back to what you wrote on Garnier Nutritioniste Ultra-Lift: that NAD (National Advertising Division, part of the Council of Better Business Bureaus) “asked L’Oreal to modify or discontinue certain claims for Nutritioniste Ultra Lift and Skin Renew products” because L’Oreal can’t support what they say the products do.

So, if the NAD blew the whistle on L’Oreal’s Nutritioniste Ultra Lift and Skin Renew products, why aren’t more whistles being blown on other companies doing the same thing? Shouldn’t the NAD or FDA be more on top of these swindlers? It’s not like the average person just has money to burn.

I’m VERY grateful for the Beauty Brains – setting the record straight on so many products trying to “sell us a bag of goods”.

]]> By: carrie b http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/10/17/3-reasons-to-be-suspicious-of-is-clinical/comment-page-1/#comment-23719 carrie b Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:58:01 +0000 http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/10/17/3-reasons-to-be-suspicious-of-is-clinical/#comment-23719 Does it bother me? Heck yes it bothers me! What really ticks me off is that they get away with it. And why--and how do they get away with it? Isn't it unlawful for a product to use deliberately false statements or deception in order to get people to buy it? Referring back to what you wrote on Garnier Nutritioniste Ultra-Lift: that NAD (National Advertising Division, part of the Council of Better Business Bureaus) "asked L'Oreal to modify or discontinue certain claims for Nutritioniste Ultra Lift and Skin Renew products" because L'Oreal can't support what they say the products do. So, if the NAD blew the whistle on L'Oreal's Nutritioniste Ultra Lift and Skin Renew products, why aren't more whistles being blown on other companies doing the same thing? Shouldn't the NAD or FDA be more on top of these swindlers? It's not like the average person just has money to burn. I'm VERY grateful for the Beauty Brains - setting the record straight on so many products trying to "sell us a bag of goods". Their advertising says “It’s skin care that actually lifts wrinkles from the inside out.” How can they say this? liar The Left Brain replies: They can’t say it, at least not anymore. According to the August 20, 2007 edition of the Rose Sheet (a cosmetic industry bulletin) L’Oreal has been asked to modify or discontinue certain claims for Nutritioniste Ultra lift and Skin Renew products by the NAD (National Advertising Division). As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid, many governments around the world use regulations to control false, deceptive or misleading advertising. Utilizing words such as descriptive terms or location terms to increase the perceived value of a product. company is trying to look more scientifically credible than it really is. What do YOU think? Does it bother you when companies try to trick you this way? Or do you just ignore all the hype? Does it bother me? Heck yes it bothers me! What really ticks me off is that they get away with it. And why–and how do they get away with it? Isn’t it unlawful for a product to use deliberately false statements or deception in order to get people to buy it?

Referring back to what you wrote on Garnier Nutritioniste Ultra-Lift: that NAD (National Advertising Division, part of the Council of Better Business Bureaus) “asked L’Oreal to modify or discontinue certain claims for Nutritioniste Ultra Lift and Skin Renew products” because L’Oreal can’t support what they say the products do.

So, if the NAD blew the whistle on L’Oreal’s Nutritioniste Ultra Lift and Skin Renew products, why aren’t more whistles being blown on other companies doing the same thing? Shouldn’t the NAD or FDA be more on top of these swindlers? It’s not like the average person just has money to burn.

I’m VERY grateful for the Beauty Brains – setting the record straight on so many products trying to “sell us a bag of goods”.

Their advertising says “It’s skin care that actually lifts wrinkles from the inside out.” How can they say this?

liar The Left Brain replies:
They can’t say it, at least not anymore. According to the August 20, 2007 edition of the Rose Sheet (a cosmetic industry bulletin) L’Oreal has been asked to modify or discontinue certain claims for Nutritioniste Ultra lift and Skin Renew products by the NAD (National Advertising Division).
As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid, many governments around the world use regulations to control false, deceptive or misleading advertising.
Utilizing words such as descriptive terms or location terms to increase the perceived value of a product. company is trying to look more scientifically credible than it really is.

What do YOU think? Does it bother you when companies try to trick you this way? Or do you just ignore all the hype?

]]> By: The Beauty Brains » Blog Archive » How Pricey Products Baffle Your Brain http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/10/17/3-reasons-to-be-suspicious-of-is-clinical/comment-page-1/#comment-23656 The Beauty Brains » Blog Archive » How Pricey Products Baffle Your Brain Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:43:26 +0000 http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/10/17/3-reasons-to-be-suspicious-of-is-clinical/#comment-23656 [...] about high priced hair lines like Alterna and Kerastase as well as prestige skin care products like IS Clinical and Cor, the worlds most expensive [...] [...] about high priced hair lines like Alterna and Kerastase as well as prestige skin care products like IS Clinical and Cor, the worlds most expensive [...]

]]> By: Jen http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/10/17/3-reasons-to-be-suspicious-of-is-clinical/comment-page-1/#comment-20894 Jen Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:46:53 +0000 http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/10/17/3-reasons-to-be-suspicious-of-is-clinical/#comment-20894 I have learned the hard way to be skeptical when it comes to cosmetic and skincare lines marketing claims. I am also skeptical when it comes to reviews on various sites. MSN.com has been running particularly deceptive skincare ads on their website lately. They show a hideously wrinkled and sundamaged woman's face, and then the same face appears 20 years younger and beautiful again. How classic that these companies throw out the word "science" to back up their claims, when there is actually little or no science involved whatsoever. Thanks for discussing the ways in which a product should be questioned. I have learned the hard way to be skeptical when it comes to cosmetic and skincare lines marketing claims. I am also skeptical when it comes to reviews on various sites.

MSN.com has been running particularly deceptive skincare ads on their website lately. They show a hideously wrinkled and sundamaged woman’s face, and then the same face appears 20 years younger and beautiful again. How classic that these companies throw out the word “science” to back up their claims, when there is actually little or no science involved whatsoever.

Thanks for discussing the ways in which a product should be questioned.

]]>