Guest guest Posted May 30, 2002 Report Share Posted May 30, 2002 I agree that it's good to be skeptical while giving Dr. Pilcher the chance to answer questions which we did here. I have some questions on why they didn't go after FDA approval or if the mineral oil in the formula could cause breakouts. I don't think it's wrong to ask questions based on the evidence presented. At any rate, I saw that Cutanix will cost $65 for 2 ounces though you can get samples. If it works that's great. However like Patty said we have to ask questions so we don't literally get burned like I have from so many products that were supposed to help, but didn't. Take care, Matija > > I think what the few cyberdocs did on the roscae > > board to Dr. Pilcher was totally uncalled for( one > >is a vet for crying out loud) > > Ralph, good to hear from you. How are things going? > > The way Dr. Pilcher was treated was outrageous. I > can't believe the rosacea list. There's so much > traffic on that list -- some months over 1000 messages > a month, that's over 30 every day. Virtually none of > the messages are from people doing cutting edge > research on the disease and when an expert takes the > time to explain a new product and his research he gets > treated like some kind of charlatan or crook. I doubt > Dr. Pilcher will share his research on that list > again. Who can blame him? In fact, the way he was > treated will certainly encourage researchers and > companies working on new products to stay away from > the rosacea list. > > > It is clear from their website that they have put > > zero dollars into their > > marketing campaign--if cutanix was selling snake > > oil, the very opposite > > would be happening--they would be putting zero > > dollors into research and > > development and everything into marketing--this is > > clearly not the case with > > Cutanix > > Very true. This is a GOOD sign. These guys are > scientists, not marketers or sales people. > > > Anybody get an answer yet for when and how we can > > actually purchase it? > > My understanding is that we will be able to buy it > from their Web site. It should be available sometime > in June. Probably by the end of the second week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2002 Report Share Posted May 30, 2002 I agree that it's good to be skeptical while giving Dr. Pilcher the chance to answer questions which we did here. I have some questions on why they didn't go after FDA approval or if the mineral oil in the formula could cause breakouts. I don't think it's wrong to ask questions based on the evidence presented. At any rate, I saw that Cutanix will cost $65 for 2 ounces though you can get samples. If it works that's great. However like Patty said we have to ask questions so we don't literally get burned like I have from so many products that were supposed to help, but didn't. Take care, Matija > > I think what the few cyberdocs did on the roscae > > board to Dr. Pilcher was totally uncalled for( one > >is a vet for crying out loud) > > Ralph, good to hear from you. How are things going? > > The way Dr. Pilcher was treated was outrageous. I > can't believe the rosacea list. There's so much > traffic on that list -- some months over 1000 messages > a month, that's over 30 every day. Virtually none of > the messages are from people doing cutting edge > research on the disease and when an expert takes the > time to explain a new product and his research he gets > treated like some kind of charlatan or crook. I doubt > Dr. Pilcher will share his research on that list > again. Who can blame him? In fact, the way he was > treated will certainly encourage researchers and > companies working on new products to stay away from > the rosacea list. > > > It is clear from their website that they have put > > zero dollars into their > > marketing campaign--if cutanix was selling snake > > oil, the very opposite > > would be happening--they would be putting zero > > dollors into research and > > development and everything into marketing--this is > > clearly not the case with > > Cutanix > > Very true. This is a GOOD sign. These guys are > scientists, not marketers or sales people. > > > Anybody get an answer yet for when and how we can > > actually purchase it? > > My understanding is that we will be able to buy it > from their Web site. It should be available sometime > in June. Probably by the end of the second week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2002 Report Share Posted May 30, 2002 Guys, please let the bantering end. I hate that the debate got heated at times. Individuals will always disagree and I am grateful that there are forums like these for those to voice their opinions. As stated in a previous post I do agree that the bar should be raised high for any company and their representatives. I am still reading posts (and learning a lot!) and will continue to address questions as they are posed to me. I just don't want to come off as trying to sell product or push a marketing agenda. " I have some questions > on why they didn't go after FDA approval or if the mineral oil in the > formula could cause breakouts. I don't think it's wrong to ask questions based on the evidence presented. " 1.We didn't go after FDA approval because the active ingredient is already on the FEMA (Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Assoc) GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) list and is approved already by the FDA as a food additive. Members of the Quadrinone family occur naturally in plants, particularly in nut oils. 2.The formulation as it now stands has been proven to be non- irritating, non-sensitizing, and non-comedogenic by an independent preclinical testing service. If you would like more in-depth details about safety data I'd be happy to provide it. Thanks, Pilcher > I agree that it's good to be skeptical while giving Dr. Pilcher the > chance to answer questions which we did here. I have some questions > on why they didn't go after FDA approval or if the mineral oil in the > formula could cause breakouts. I don't think it's wrong to ask > questions based on the evidence presented. > > At any rate, I saw that Cutanix will cost $65 for 2 ounces though you > can get samples. If it works that's great. However like Patty said we > have to ask questions so we don't literally get burned like I have > from so many products that were supposed to help, but didn't. > > Take care, > Matija Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2002 Report Share Posted May 30, 2002 Dr. Pilcher, If you can provide more data and where we can get samples, that would be great. Thank you for answering my questions. I'm looking forward to trying your product. Take care, Matija > > I agree that it's good to be skeptical while giving Dr. Pilcher the > > chance to answer questions which we did here. I have some questions > > on why they didn't go after FDA approval or if the mineral oil in > the > > formula could cause breakouts. I don't think it's wrong to ask > > questions based on the evidence presented. > > > > At any rate, I saw that Cutanix will cost $65 for 2 ounces though > you > > can get samples. If it works that's great. However like Patty said > we > > have to ask questions so we don't literally get burned like I have > > from so many products that were supposed to help, but didn't. > > > > Take care, > > Matija Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2002 Report Share Posted May 31, 2002 Thanks for coming back to answer questions, Dr. Pilcher. You're a brave man. > 1.We didn't go after FDA approval because the active ingredient is > already on the FEMA (Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Assoc) GRAS > (Generally Recognized as Safe) list and is approved already by the > FDA as a food additive. Members of the Quadrinone family occur > naturally in plants, particularly in nut oils. For FDA-approved prescriptives, I thought the key was demonstrating that an ingredient is more effective than placebo in treating a condition. A safety profile must be filed, and the FDA will not approve (or will recall) something that is shown to be dangerous, but a drug doesn't need to be safe to be approved -- just efficacious. Besides, even if it's regarded as GRAS and FDA-approved as a food additive, you're using it as a topical agent. Also, the FDA-approved digitalis occurs naturally in plants. > 2.The formulation as it now stands has been proven to be non- > irritating, non-sensitizing, and non-comedogenic by an independent > preclinical testing service. But that's for normal skin, right? ceans are notorious for their sensitive skin, which behaves differently with respect to ingredients, combinations of ingredients, and likelihood for developing sensitivity to ingredients with use, than does normal skin. Matija, my understanding is that, surprisingly, mineral oil is actually non-comedogenic (for normal skin). Marjorie Marjorie Lazoff, MD > > > I agree that it's good to be skeptical while giving Dr. Pilcher the > > chance to answer questions which we did here. I have some questions > > on why they didn't go after FDA approval or if the mineral oil in > the > > formula could cause breakouts. I don't think it's wrong to ask > > questions based on the evidence presented. > > > > At any rate, I saw that Cutanix will cost $65 for 2 ounces though > you > > can get samples. If it works that's great. However like Patty said > we > > have to ask questions so we don't literally get burned like I have > > from so many products that were supposed to help, but didn't. > > > > Take care, > > Matija Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2002 Report Share Posted May 31, 2002 Mineral oil is interesting. Supposedly, there are different purities/qualities/grades of mineral oil out there or mineral oil supplies which come from different chemcical company sources which vary in their comedogenicity. Keep in mind that now the current thinking is the combined formulation cannot necessarily be predicted by the comedogenicity of the individual ingredients. So, mineral oil by itself may be ok, which for many it is. Petrolatum by itself is ok for many. But combine the mineral oil or petrolatum with an irritating fragrance, dimethicone, maybe some sort of evil red-headed organic chemistry nightmare stephchild of the myrystate family (my apologies to stepchildren), and apply the offending product to your face and even those without rosacea triggered body dysmorphic disorder will be unpleasantly shocked. Another thing I find is that those on low dose Accutane are especially sensitive to comedogenic/acnegenic topicals because of the nature of the effects of Accutane. > > > > Matija, my understanding is that, surprisingly, mineral oil is > > actually non-comedogenic (for normal skin). > > > > Marjorie > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.