![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif_5GGtfB16YT1hCDevpt-VOiMrb4U6dLE6XgoCQavlwXhIl8KhNS7L60OdEZ08rcc2D5mkl0AzTimxQfitCFEXc01jWeYMI2uX275v0W8SPsER4R7PzzT4_GgwHeJCQU1SpcsL13OO1U/s400/180px-N2_Human_eye.jpg)
There is no disease cuasing people not to have eyelashes. It seems to be a formula targeted at all the millions of mascara and false eyelash wearers who simply want longer lashes for the sake of vanity. The question is WHY? Why did a serious drug company spend R&D money on this formula? Was it an incidental discover in attempts to find something more beneficial? Nothing I read answered that question.
There are many serious diseases that affect relatively small numbers of people -- I think that might mean less than a one person per million. In Big Phrama parlance these are called "Orphan Diseases" because the possibility of large profits from a drug aimed at those diseases may not be enough to pay back the R&D costs. Some drug companies, nevertheless DO try to formulate drugs for at least some orphan diseases and do a great service to quite a few needy individuals.
Do people lose their eyelashes as they lose hair when they have certain kinds of chemo therapy? Wouldn't they need hair growth compounds more? I can think of no NEED for most people to grow longer, lusher eyelashes. If any reader has a contrary view, I'd LOVE to hear from you.
No comments:
Post a Comment