Beauty at What Cost?
December 20th, 2010. By janem
According to the pharmaceutical company Allergan Inc., Brooke Shields and I are suffering from “Inadequate Eyelashes”. Now I must convince my doctor to prescribe Latisse so I will be able to face humanity and not be a victim of yet another physical shortcoming and low self-esteem that obviously is the result of not having full eyelashes. (Did you know that women who become reliant on cosmetic enhancers tend to have low self-esteem, and are at risk of using products obsessively to make themselves feel good?)
I don’t know about you, but it’s a real struggle to keep up with appearances, and to keep one step ahead of potential lawsuits. For instance, all those Dow Corning lawsuits years ago make it difficult for a gal to get a breast implant these days. And my dentist just informed me that he can no longer offer Botox treatments after my teeth whitening because a few people died, apparently due to the Botox. Just the other day my hair stylist said she isn’t stocking Brazilian Blowout products anymore because of some formaldehyde scare.
Honestly, what a bunch of cowards.
All joking aside, cosmetic medications could potentially do serious harm to your health in the long run. Even though a medication like Latisse is relatively safe, no one knows what the long-term side effects are. These products certainly aren’t tested for years and years in clinical trials. So, it’s likely just a matter of time before someone files a Latisse lawsuit– before someone suffers serious side effects from the med. Allergan has already been issued a warning by the FDA because its ads are misleading and they “omit and minimize risks associated with Latisse.” Side effects include permanent iris pigmentation (I guess that’s OK if you want those baby blues to become brown eyes—forever), and here are a few more:
- Lid pigmentation, or a darkening on the skin of the eyelid that is also likely to be permanent
- Hair growth outside of the treatment area, including the cheeks, forehead or any other skin surface that Latisse touches
- Intraocular inflammation, characterized by redness and irritation, blurred vision, eye pain and sensitivity to light
- Bacterial keratitis, or a serious infection of the cornea that can be caused by misuse of the product.
Latisse and Botox share a similar history in that both drugs were more or less stumbled upon; and Allergan (they also share the same drug maker) unexpectedly found huge commercial potential in their products if the FDA were to approve them off-label. Botox was originally approved in 1989; the FDA later approved (in 2000) Botox for treatment of cervical dystonia in adults to decrease the severity of abnormal head position and neck pain; then it was used to treat eye conditions and excessive underarm perspiration. Now Allergan faces a number of lawsuits over its anti-wrinkle treatment—all the suits allege that harm was caused by Botox spreading from the injection site, and include some element of off-label use of the drug.
In an article last year, The Wall Street Journal said that as much as one-third of Botox sales are from uses for which it’s not been approved by the FDA. And Latisse is likely going the same way. Some doctors are concerned that Latisse, which is a glaucoma medication, will be available in spas and clinics nationwide, regardless of whether a doctor approves the prescription.
Of course this would make Allergan very happy. Meanwhile, I’m going to buy a new tube of mascara and eyelash curlers.
Find us on
Archive by Category
- Accidents (24)
- Airlines (9)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (262)
- Automotive (25)
- Celebrity (14)
- Class Action (84)
- Complaints/Comments (15)
- Consumer Fraud (84)
- Contest (2)
- Court of Public Opinion (5)
- Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See (61)
- Criminal Law (4)
- Defective Products (111)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (2)
- Discrimination (22)
- Drugs/Medical (248)
- Elder Care Abuse (4)
- Emerging Issues (462)
- Employment (54)
- Environment (52)
- Financial (28)
- Food Illness (15)
- Human/Civil Rights (4)
- Insecurities (5)
- Insurance (16)
- Intellectual Property (16)
- Internet/E-commerce (19)
- lawsuits (161)
- Lawyers (20)
- Lawyers Giving Back (43)
- Lex Levity (10)
- Personal Injury (106)
- Pleading Ignorance (53)
- Real Estate (2)
- Recall (6)
- Scam (3)
- Securities (13)
- Settlement (81)
- Tort Reform (2)
- Totally Tortelicious (81)
- Veterans (11)
- Whistleblower (9)
Latisse is a Hoax!!. I used it for two months, got great results, then stopped because it was cost prohibitive. Not only did my lashes go back to "normal", I lost some!!! I had to start using it again in the hopes that they would grow back, but only two or three did. I've been using it for almost four months now and do not have ANY increase in lash length or thickness like I did the first time. In addition, mascara just doesn't go on the same. Oh yeah, although I never put it on the bottom lashes as suggested by Allergan, my bottom lashes don't respond to mascara either. When are we gonna sue??????
I am with you Lisa
I have corneal dystrophy from using this product. I am legally blind in both eyes.
Absolutely agree! my beautiful greenish/light brownish eyes-often just referred to as green-are not a horrible, dark, dark brown/blackish thanks to the desire to have longer lashes! I think Latisse should be taken off the market!
Dear janem, First of all, my apologies for commenting a little over a year after you published this piece however truth in journalism is near and dear to my heart. I dearly value the rights we enjoy as Americans first an foremost among them, the 1st amendment. To use that right to me, means we have an obligation to speak the truth, as we know it.
Perhaps you did not intend to deliver false information but clearly did not do your research. Is it not the responsibility of the writer to thoroughly research a topic before spouting off? Ok, again my apologies. As yet, I have not given you the information you need. You wrote " Latisse and Botox share a similar history in that both drugs were more or less stumbled upon; and Allergan (they also share the same drug maker) unexpectedly found huge commercial potential in their products if the FDA were to approve them off-label."
Do you even know what off-label means, that should have been one of the most important parts of your research. The FDA does NOT APPROVE OFF-LABEL USE! The very definition of "off label" is that a product is NOT APPROVED for a particular use. A healthcare provider is free to use the product "off-label" but the manufacturer is not permitted to market the drug for that particular use.
When a drug or medical device is tested buy a manufacturer for approval by the FDA (the FDA does not do the testing) they are testing for a specific use as in the case you mentioned "Botox". Botox proved to be a valuable drug for many reason other than what it was tested and LABELED for. that is what is is about. The manufacturer tests a product for a specific use. If it proves viable for that use then the manufacturer can LABEL it as such and market it for that use. Get it?
So when a provider uses it for something other than what is is labeled (approved for by the FDA) it is called off-label use. Get it now? If I have not helped you, do more research, the research you should have done before you wrote your first blurb (hope it remains nothing more than a blurb and you, a blurber). yeah, I researched it "blurber" is not a word but I think you get my drift.
No we are not going to sue because "off label" use is not a malfunction of the manufacturer but of the user. Worst case scenario it is a medical malpractice case and not worth mention in this context. Research baby, research….
Hi Fiddleywink, First off, thanks for your comment–what it tends to lack in substance is sure as shootin' makes up for in length! So grant me the same opportunity to respond in similar length! If you read Jane's post correctly, she used a little word: "if". It's a very big little word–isn't it?! Why, in this context, it means the FDA didn't (and doesn't) approve off-label claims for Botox–and indeed if the FDA had approved off-label claims, it would have undoubtedly led to greater commercial opportunity for Allergan. For the record, Jane, as a very well-respected journalist, knows the ins and outs of FDA approvals and off-label marketing. You are correct in that a drug manufacturer cannot market a drug off-label, and we've seen plenty of lawsuits stemming from such practices; unfortunately, there is often a trail leading backward from a doctor who prescribes a drug off-label to the doctor's source of information on that off-label use–and guess what? It's often information he or she has gotten from a pharmaceutical sales rep! (No way you say, right?). Of course, if the manufacturer has marketed their drug in strict accordance with FDA guidelines, then yes, it could certainly lead to malpractice lawsuits if the drug were used off-label and caused injury. Sadly, however, there are lawsuits where the injury relates to Botox on-label use–which Jane mentions in this article–so while you state that "we" are not going to sue…newsflash! some folks have sued. In closing, do you "get it now" as well? or should I say…"Read baby, read…" Here's something else you can read: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/settlements/…
Oops janem, I just realized the most glaring of inaccuracies in your post. Botox was first approved in 1989 (you got the year right, woohoo) for strabismus. cervical dystonia came much later. i was a part of that trial and am blessed and thankful to have benefited from inclusion. Again, that was many, many years after 1989. Did you do any research?
Thanks fiddleywink for this addendum–when we goof we certainly take ownership–yes, Botox was approved in 1989, but the cervical dystonia indication was 2000. We've updated this in the post. Our previous comments stand–we take responsibility for any factual errors, but we also expect our readers to actually read what's been written (and, if you're going to defend Allergan re: off label marketing, do some research yourself). We certainly are very happy for you that you benefitted from the Botox trial you were a part of–we always appreciate it when a drug has, indeed, helped someone sans harmful side effects.
I love your reply to Fiddleywink. Its true some people do benefit or get Bless when relying on a product to produce a result, but what about the many that are not so Bless on the same experiment.
Help! Latisse has made my vision blurry!!
Anyone else had this happen?
Oh my goodness yes!
Very much so. I thought it was just me. I had 20/20…key being had
Just horribly discolored irises! Vision has gotten blurry but never thought to attribute it to Latisse!
After years of using Latisse without incident, 2 weeks ago I developed swelling, pain and itching. Thought it was allergies or infection. My ophthalmologist said it is LATISSE and to throw it away. I also have ocular pressure changes. I can’t wear makeup for a while and have to treat for blepharitis for the rest of my life. Off-label drug use should be illegal. You need a prescription from a “reputable” doc for Latisse. A truly reputable doc would tell you DON’T DO IT. WTF is up with the FDA?
You are so right! a truly reputable doc would tell you about darkened iris as side effect-mine didn’t. But surely with all the complaints now being lodged against Allergen, the FDA would check into this! Or Allergen would do more testing! At least test for a darkened iris pigmentation solution,
I never have been so upset in my life! The darkening iris did not take place overnight, it took several years to start changing to it’s present dark brown/ black! I wonder what Brooke Shields will do when her irises start getting darker?