Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Member |
I'm always amused by bad science in television adverts but only rarely get to see it combined with bad linguistics. There is an ad currently running for a new anti-wrinkle face cream which has plenty of bad science in it but also has the claim that it is effective because it contains its amazing new ingredient. This ingredient is clearly written up in capital letters on the screen as PRO-XYLANE but referred to in the voice over as Proxy-lane or later as Pro-X. Incidentally, as far as can discover there is no scientific basis whatsoever to the claim that you can "rebuild your skin from the inside out". It does remind me of a shampoo ad from years ago that explained that the shampoo was good because it was "adsorbed" by the hair. Since "adsorb" means to form a layer on the surface, it scarcely seems compatible with any kind of cleaning does it.This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | ||
|
Member |
Here's what their Web site says (I couldn't get their link to work here): Beech wood, huh? They are referring to the matrix support when they talk about "rebuilding from the inside out." I'd hardly call additional matrix support "rebuilding from the inside out," but I suppose they could get away with that. I can tell you that many women would be impressed by the matrix part and about it being the "first line" to use patented Pro-Xylane. I was a little impressed with their correct apostrophe use. | |||
|
Member |
You sound skeptical. Don't forget that at one time almost all of our medicined were plant-based. The WHO estimates that 80% of the world's population rely on herbal medicines for their primary health care. There is a patent on ingredients from Fagus spp. (beech) .
And, if you really want to read the article, you can buy it here. The following is from Silvics of North America: Fagus grandifolia (American beech)
I have no idea how effective Skin Genesis. I still remember the Acne Satin debacle.
I want to point out the next paragraph, too, though it probably comes as no surprise to anyone.
And here's one from Washington state.
| |||
|
Member |
When I checked I found any number of sites rubbishing the claims. Most of the claims made for this type of product are scientific nonsensne. If they had hard evidence they would present it rather than some vague and woolly statement of what it's supposed to do. In cases such as this, they haven't presented it because they don't have it. (The standard cosmetics industry defence on this is that the poor little members of the public are too thick to understand it.) Anyway it was the reanalysis of pro - xylane as proxy - lane that I was actually commenting on. "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|