Attack on Bio Oil claims by ASA in England wrongly suggests chemist Johann Wiechers
15 .11 .2009
The South African cosmetics brand Bio Oil may in England from the advertising watchdog ASA no longer make claims against stretch marks and scars.

Bio OilAlthough the producer Union Swiss  three well conducted studies still managed to produce, they are the experts of the ASA written off due to lack of sufficient evidence. Our cosmetic chemist Johann Wiechers who was involved in the proof for the claims afterwards, responds that it is unjust. 'Cosmetics you should not pharmaceutical way to test if the claim has not requested it. It is applied science, tests with volunteers who give their findings and lubricate suffice. "

This is what we reported about earlier:

According to the experts of ASA, there is no cosmeticum that can reduce scarring . If Bio Oil claims this to be able to do so, they must submit research that conforms to scientific protocols, so the double-blind and placebo-controlled studies are conducted. Only then, say the experts, you can do some serious claims only become seriously. Bio Oil did have good research conducted, but it was not double blind placebo controlled. However, there may be something to the skin color and the hardness of the tissue to be done, say the experts, and this is also now enough evidence to find by simply massaging and a moisturizer  to lubricate. On these points satisfies the oil then only.

About the visible reduction of stretch marks was the ASA also clear: the proof was too skinny. The submitted research with measurable results, there was very little improvement, it was mainly the opinions of the participating women themselves provided a high score visible improvement. The latter is too subjective to be taken seriously says ASA. The point is that basically all cosmetic brands here always make ample use of results to discuss: the opinion of the participant counts heavily. But this opinion is obviously heavily colored by the fervent hope, you want it to work, so you are inclined to believe that it works well and can be a good skin feel even obscure the truth.

But according to Johann Wiechers have here nothing wrong with it, it's just what the brand claims .

Johann Wiechers tells us :

"The ASA is therefore of the opinion that if you are a volunteer in a study asks whether his or her skin condition is improved by the use of a product, this in advance is not credible. This person will - according to the ASA - Always the answer you want to hear as a researcher, it is subjective. The ASA is a consumer test as Bio Oil which has performed and on which the claims are based is not sufficient. In America very often questionnaires given to subjects, and the evidence for the effectivitiet through these lists obtained. In Europe, people think differently about this. Here we use preferably more objective observations such as by means of measuring devices can be obtained.

A second issue is that there is not a double-blind study was conducted, but something you jargon in a single blind study calls. In placebo-controlled trials knows both the test group and the researcher is not what is true is lubricated. This is the case when one half of the subjects the active product allows lubrication, while the other half a "fake" product gets, or a placebo. But something else happened in this study. Since Bio-Oil just something about the product claims and not on one or more of the ingredients (more on this later), was tested against untreated skin. You let people test one piece of skin with the product (the full product thus, not only an ingredient out there) but treat the other piece remains untreated. Because the people in the control group and the test group the same people is a double-blind study are not possible, because now you know the one that lubricates do which of the two arms of the product that has received because they themselves opgesmeerd. A single-blind study, and so it is by definition wrong according to the ASA.

The ASA believes that the efficacy of a product with a fundamentally new effect can be demonstrated only with standards such as those in pharmacy and medicine are, therefore double-blind placebo-controlled study. But as a cosmetic chemist with knowledge of claim substantiation I say that this is only relevant when the efficacy of individual active substances and want to show it also claims to want to put "Ingredient X creates ...." but Bio Oil makes no statements on individual substances and their efficacy, it only makes statements about the overall product. That is ultimately what the consumer buys and so interested.

The raw material suppliers test their ingredients very nicely against a placebo, because they want to prove their ingredient works. Then can you as a company (the jars filled with the ingredients in the market place) that an ingredient in a cream stop, but that does not mean that the ingredient works. Therefore, if you end processor (the brand so) prove your finished work. It is not only those active substances, it is the total product including emulsifiers, water, fats, et cetera.

I give courses on claim substantiation and the key question is always: "What is your product control?" A placebo or a piece of untreated skin? And that depends on your claim. You claim that your total product works, then you need that product testing against a product minus the product, so an untreated skin. You can claim your ingredient works, then you should test product to that product minus the active ingredient, so a placebo. In all cases, this may be the best to the skin of the same person. ASA enforces Bio Oil now to the product of the double-blind placebo-controlled manner and testing to show that one or more ingredients, whereas Bio Oil that totally does not want to claim . Either: I must prove my Ferrari 300 km per hour drive, while I only say that the color of my Ferrari Ferrari red. Which therefore suffice with watching that car and its color to that of an official Ferrari color card to compare. Will the color of my Ferrari and the color on the card match, then that is sufficient. 

The cosmetics has something to do with active ingredients such as pharmaceuticals too, but you communicate the total product.

The point is that there is often no cosmetic chemists in this type of control bodies work, and the people who work there, often from medical angle, have no affinity. They just say, cosmetics does not work, and if it works it should be a medicinal product. That implies that you are working with disease (!).

The interpretation of what a drug does and a cosmetic, true to my idea anymore. Someone who is bald and an active cosmetic product get is not ill? Baldness is not a disease? The current legislation is before the time we have unraveled the structure of DNA. You see today both in cosmetics and in the pharmaceutical substances on the DNA work and that they have always done, we've just never known, as in the case of cosmetics. All those cosmetics now suddenly drugs? It is time for a reinterpretation of the law. "

© BeautyJournaal.nl

All rights reserved, please read our disclaimer for acquisition and image items.
Share this article:
  • Print
  • enamel
Share this article:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Hyves
  • LinkedIn
  • NuJIJ
  • Technorati

Comments

10 Responses to Attack on Bio Oil claims by ASA in England wrongly suggests chemist Johann Wiechers

  1. Also do not double-blind controlled study of bio-oil is pretty shabby. It makes me wonder why a product whose efficacy they expect not just double test. Then everyone is happy and we have a wonderful product in your hands.

    But no, we must make do with half-baked research and a lousy representation. Nevertheless, I am curious about the effects of the active ingredients of purcellin oil, as claimed by Mr Wiechers: where can I find the studies that have been done to find?

    Transparency of research is a bit large absence in this story.

    Dew-point
  2. Hello dear people of beautyjournaal.nl

    I continue with some questions are nav above article by Mr. Wiechers. Unfortunately I have not received a reply via this website. Here I put my questions outlined:
    (Part 2 is the response to the above article by Wiechers)
    Volume

  3. Dear Bram, we give all the standard questions from readers to our experts, when they get to focus. It is ultimately up to the expert as to whether or not (want to) answer. Since we can not influence. We will also post your February 20 2010 again under the attention of Johann Wiechers.

    Editorial Beauty News

  4. Dear Bram,

    Monique has this question to me indeed passed. Also, your first reaction has forwarded them to me. Let me explain why I did not answer.

    Your first comment begins with the following statement "Also do not double-blind controlled study of bio-oil is pretty shabby.". Have you seen this study? Have you had to face the results on which you can make this kind of comments?

    I can ask to get you your second reaction remains not even find.

    I do not want to give answers to those accusations about things they do not know whether these things are not read. That is just a yes-no game, which nobody hurry. If you have a specific question that is not already directly contain a value judgment, I wish you best answer (if I know the answer), but unsubstantiated tirades I'm not.

    Sincerely,

    Johann Wiechers.

  5. @ Beauty news: thanks for the service.

    @ Mr Wiechers: That is very easy. Claim that a product works and avoid critical consideration of very moderate evidence that claims to support. But I know that you know Michael Shermer's baloney detection:

    1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
    NOT, see section the question: are there other sources?) The evidence is offered from a website, no reference to authoritative sources. 2. Often Does the source make similar claims? From the cosmetic industry are very often raised similar claims; ("x is the signs of aging, reduce pimples, etc) You say that Goldacre incorrectly states that in the cosm. industry often there is bad science: you have a wonderful opportunity to show that good science is conducted, where appearances are against them. 3. Have the claims leg verified by another source? NO, or which sources one does not want to give up, making me highly unlikely. There is no ointment that reduced scarring. Part of the reasoning of the ASA that double-edged. research should be delivered. 4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works? NO. There is no ointment scars reduced, bio-oil is revolutionary. At least the claims. (Extra ordinary claims demand extra-ordinary evidence, All which is not there) 5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence sought leg? YES, I have done: and there is only supportive evidence given (on the website), they are very creaky, and a reason to include double-blind study to come out (on beautyjournaal.nl). Why would a cosmetic product randomized double blind test could or should be? In addition, not having a clear references. Where can I (peer reviewed?) Sources like? 6. Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant's Conclusion or to a different one? YES: A very different one: bogus science, bogus claims. 7. Is the claimant Employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these leg abandoned in favor of others That lead to the Desired Conclusion? NO. That is pretty much the core of the problem: bio-oil supplies are not sufficient evidence to support the claim to justify. It is at best mediocre research, where a lot of confusion about it. (See part 2, including 'blind blinding') 8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or Merely denying the Replace existing explanation? NO, it does not account for the reduction of scars, there is only indicated that double-blind study is not applicable to a 'cosmetic' product (medical claims supplies) and subjective data shortage coming deemed by the ASA (which in reality is not so: ASA wishes thorough, double-blind study) 9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did? NO, there is no explanation of the operation offered. Only that it works, where again no good evidence for it. 10. Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the Conclusions, or vice versa? YES: I'm the reasons put forward to suggest that you (Mr Wiechers) financial gain at the disposal of bio-oil, according to you on beauty journal. en information.

















  6. After listening to the interview with Dr Wiechers I can not resist the devil's advocate to play ;).
    's ruling Dr Wiechers above which he has a single blind study for Bio Oil approves surprised me, because in the interview marketing strategies disapproves where information on the results of the "placebo" is not presented.
    His argument is that Bio oil to the entire product, and not a single ingredient. Therefore, a placebo trial are not necessary. But who tells me that almond oil or olive oil (any oil you name it) does not give the same result than Bio Oil. Are we here at beauty news not always critical test of face creams because they are compared with untreated skin and you never know whether you have a simple cream like Nivea same result was achieved?
    Dr. Wiechers, I am looking forward to your response. Kind grioeten, Gerti

    Gerti
  7. I agree with the two previous commenters.

    However, I have few expectations of a response from Wiechers.

    If you have a specific question that is not already directly contain a value judgment, I wish you best answer

    In the case of Wiechers I would not leaping to answer.

    Valuing the claims of Wiechers course not done. Because that's science.

    And there are the Wiechers claims of nothing to do.

    Cryptocheilus
  8. I also agree with the previous comments. Also, consumers want the objective truth. Nobody wants to pay money for a product that you just feel to work. So wish you as a consumer objective evidence. So I am all for the double-blind placebo-controlled study!

    Wiechers puts too much emphasis on what Bio Oil actually desires to claim. That a company wants to continue with its superficial claims and not really the goal has to come with hard evidence, I understand best, but that is NOT what the consumer wants. Companies are thus beyond what consumers truly desire, namely hard evidence.

    Moreover, consumers tend to result from weak research translate into "evidence". This is a form of self-deception. I get the feeling that Wiechers think there is nothing wrong with that. From the consumer point of view, however, there is a lot wrong with it. The confusion between hard evidence and subjective results, namely by companies deliberately created and abused while consumers with sincere faith invests his money.

    David
  9. david, this game is played as long as I can remember and legislation allows it. cosmetics is a lifestyle product, a marketing product with a very, very little science. I wonder why more people have been so terribly preoccupied with their skin, but also because we have already been an article widely. it is still a nice chicken and egg story and an even more cat and mouse game.

    editors, monique
  10. Bio oil I started using for my many scars .. incredibly soothing (after shaving) and whatnot immediately after 2-3 weeks of use notice is that certain skin structures lights begin to improve. This I have with any other product or laser device can achieve. At my scores Bio-oil is extremely high. One may of course not have unrealistic expectations. Remains reeeel and any improvement how light and / or too little is a bonus. This product works and unlike any other creams .. etc.. I already tried. Best regards. Gino RJ Thierens

    Gino RJ Thierens

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Enter your name.

Please enter a correct email address.

*

Enter a message.

You may use prosthesis HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <b> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <Q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Expert advice:
Good lubrication

More expert advice

Tested products:
Good lubrication

More cosmetics tested

Recent articles by Johann Wiechers

Our cosmetic scientist is exposing ......
Environmental organizations point out the dangers of nano cosmetics. ...

About Johann Wiechers

As a cosmetic scientist he knows everything about permeability of the skin. Initially worked Prof. Johann Wiechers as Skin R & D director at the Dutch company Uniqema, a division of ICI and as Dermal Delivery Team Leader at Unilever ....
More about Johann Wiechers
Advertisement

Testo originale