Left Brain--I love your passion for this. A Big *Thank You* from me.

Hey Left - I'm proud of your persistence on this one. Keep fighting the good fight! And I love the way you explain the logical fallacies. You should write a blog post about those!

I took a writing class (was only required to take 2.. hahaha), and we had to learn all different logical fallacies. Those are fun!!!

Made in China

Designed in the USA

After reading all the above comments, it seems that Lynnette is the only reasonable one in the bunch! Left Brain sounds to me like the revolutionary that stands on a pedestal with a torch and fires up the mob to support her agenda! I read all the published reports about Jan Marini and Revitalash (which I use). It sounds to me like another crappy action by an incompetent governmental agency to save some kind of face in the wake of all its failings. Why did they seize the product if it had been sitting in JM's warehouse for 9 months? If women and their eyes were being so horribly endangered by the 'evil queen' of cosmetics, why didn't the White Knight of the FDA swoop in a year earlier when it would saved a damsel or two? In actuality, JM seems to have cooperated fully to address any concerns ,as unsubstantiated as they ARE. The 6 points that Left Brain makes in her reply to Lynnette's sharing message smack of biased hatred of big companies in general, always assuming that they have evil ends to make the almighty dollar. I don't explicitly trust them either but neither am I condemnatory. Both Jan Marini and Revitalash have outstanding records of safety and quality for their products. What the FDA did to JM was unwarranted, unfair and back-stabbing to meet their own ends. I have no agenda here. I don't use Jan Marini products. I just despise injustice and wish others would not be led along by the revolutionaries who claim to be there for the poor commoner who they claim to be protecting. And I thank Lynnette for her thoughtful words.

the FDA couldn't have gone in and seized anything without following their own SOPs, and testing everything (twice, thrice) to confirm that their initial suspicion had the correct results..

IF the FDA had gone in there to seize products based on initial complaints and/or suspicions, and had not done proper testing/auditing to justify seizing and banning of said products, what would your reaction be?

and all those tests do take a while.. plus there's all those paperwork and what not that they go through..

Lynnette, i am not the same ampaone as you described in your message; i don't have a blog nor am involved with any groups that do, except this one. I'm just a little gal that gets overheated at others' comments sometimes. Maybe my daughter is right and I need to lighten up and watch my blood pressure! Dang , what fun is that!!??

To Karen, YEP, here we go again, ain't it fun?

To taiwanesegurl, if FDA did all that testing and auditing of lash products, why didn't they mention them in their report. In fact, they didn't even have a single case complaint that implicated any lash product. What they did say is that if one used a lash product containing the bimotoprost and was already using a glaucoma medication, that there was a possibility of harm. Newsflash! Anyone already using glaucoma meds WOULD NOT NEED a lash product because their lashes would already be out there!! Sheesh!

Purplerules, you make a good point! And that applies to us all. We all are damned if we do and damned if we don't! And Hell never hangs "No Vacancy"!

But wouldn't you need a prescription for the glaucoma drops?
I have a client who uses the drops for his glaucoma (he says his "catamaracks"!) and his eyelashes are gorgeous. It is the meds that did this and it was a prescription.
I do not think he is using lash products. I know he isn't.
Not to mention that the lash product is retailing for $160 and prescriptions are most likely covered by a plan.
JMHO,
Lynnette

Ampaone, so good to have you back! We missed your side of the debate. We didn't miss your propensity for engaging in Ad hominem arguments e.g Left Brain sounds to me like the revolutionary that stands on a pedestal with a torch and fires up the mob to support her agenda!These kind of debate tactics undermine your message and aren't really needed. But to respond to your accusations I leave the following."The 6 points that Left Brain makes...smack of biased hatred of big companies in general, always assuming that they have evil ends to make the almighty dollar." 

I wonder if you actually read my comments or the Beauty Brains blog.  If anything it would be more appropriate to claim we have a bias against SMALL companies, not BIG companies.  Big companies rarely launch products that are deemed so unsafe by the FDA that they are forbidden to sell them to the general public.  Big companies know & follow FDA rules.  Small companies are typically the ones that break the rules in labeling, cosmetic claims, and product safety testing. 

Jan Marini is a small company who demonstrates little compunction about selling illegal products to the general population.  I make no assumption that companies big or small are evil.  Companies like Jan Marini and Athena Cosmetics (makers or Revitalash) make the entire cosmetic industry look bad.  If they wanted to sell their product as a drug that would increase eyelash growth they could've followed the SOPs designed by the FDA to get the drug approved for that.  Of course, that would've cost them a lot of money & time so it's reasonable to suspect they decided to gamble that the FDA wouldn't go after them.  I'm not unhappy that they lost.  Now the next rouge company will think twice before prescribing pharmaceutical grade drugs to an unsuspecting public.

You spend so much time disparaging me or the FDA and no time disputing my points except to dismiss them as "biased hatred".  The only thing even close to addressing my points was when you said both Jan Marini and Revitalash (not actually a company) have outstanding records of safety.  What information is that based on?  Where are these records of safety that you talk about?  The only record I know about Jan Marini is that they made a product that the FDA seized because of safety concerns.

You also claim that what the FDA was unwarranted, unfair and back-stabbing.  What is this based on? 

1.  FDA seizure was unwarranted.  The Jan Marini company broke the law.  How was seizure unwarranted? 

2.  FDA seizure was unfair.  I can understand this notion and agree that it is probably unfair.  The FDA should get all the companies that sell similar products.  However, the FDA doesn't have enough resources to catch every one.  Jan Marini was the first one to sell this product.  All the rest, like Revitalash, were just copy cats.  The FDA probably figured they could crack down on the originator and the rest of the companies would be frightened into compliance.  And according to this report, it worked.

3.  FDA seizure was back-stabbing.  How is this?  What is the FDA's "own ends"?  It seems to me that if their ends is to scare cosmetic companies into selling products proven safe then they did the right thing.  I don't understand what you mean by "back-stabbing".

I'll leave you with a final thought. 

If Jan Marini and Revitalash have indeed switched to an analogue of bimatoprost does it bother you that they had to kill animals to prove the new chemical was safe?  All new chemicals put in cosmetics have to be animal tested before they can be used.

I hope they don't claim their products "aren't tested on animals".  (Ok, that was a little over the top, but something to think about.)

It's like how pharm. companies volunteered recalled all their baby medication. Some people just don't follow directions, and in another case, sometimes no warning labels are attached. I've been on the websites for both Jan Marini and Revitalash, and neither of them warned me of not using their products if I were on glaucoma medication. Being a woman, a very vain one at that, even if my lashes were already long and beautiful from using glaucoma medication, I'd probably be vain enough to think that it could be even MORE lushes and gorgeous with this magical potion!

So like PR says, some people do need protection from themselves.

And let me tell you something about SOPs, since we've just had a bunch of them revised in our company, they are such a pain to write, revise, read, and follow. Almost every single lab technician recently got in trouble because none of us, including the super senior techs, followed 1 little line that was immediately after a big line that was BOLD, UNDERLINED, AND IN CAPS.

At least somebody caught it, and we generated a DR and set appropriate CAPA, so we won't get in trouble with the FDA. I think....

But yea.. I go to work for 8 hours, and seriously, more than 1/2 of those times is spent making sure that SOPs are followed. I made a mistake on Thursday, and had to redo the paperwork. My coworker, who had verified me earlier and signed on the original paperwork, had left already. I busted out of our building, still in my lab coat and gloves, to chase down his car. Luckily we aren't on a busy street, but one girl walking by did give me funny looks.

ampaone: I just don't see the point in flaming.