Mirvaso has been approved by the FDA.

[nat007]

"Or to be more precise, I discussed with my pharmacist for some time about the exact dose and mixing of the exact amount of brimonidine mcg with the exact amount of water, to get the same percentage mix as Mirvaso has of brimonidine versus carrier base, in my case water, in Mirvaso's case a enutral gel)"


This is what you added. This was not there before. You claim you did this in 2010. You tried to get the exakt same percentage as Mirvaso?.


Mirvaso info: "Each gram of MIRVASO (brimonidine) topical gel, 0.33% contains 5 mg of the active ingredient brimonidine tartrate (equivalent to 3.3 mg of brimonidine free base)" Not sure whats the difference between brimonidine 'free base' and 'active ingredient' and in what category the pure powder falls?

You dont even understand the mirvaso dosage from your post in 2013 and you where making the exakt same mix in 2010. lol


"Must have made an error in the mcg/mg/gr in the original forum post in 2010, but that's in writing, not when I actually measured it off with the pharmacist on the phone. We tried 2 mg first, to not make it too strong, I later made a second bash with 3 mg."

oh really?. You never stated anything about 3 mg until mirvaso was released and even then you did not understand ther mirvaso dosage. Why is Mirvaso even a topic on your blog. Remove that please. Your self tests have nothing to do with mirvaso. You probably lied about the dosage or in a best case scenario you


"I knew and stated that you can't compare the home made brimonidine trial with an end product like Mirvaso. But the brimonidine rebound effect which a lot of people experience here was a right estimation and prediction as it looks now, wasn't it?"

You getting rebound when you already did not tolerate the eye drops using a home made brew with ingridients from a chinese dealer is not the right estimation for anything. Why is Mirvaso even a topic on your blog. You do not state that home made trial is not comperable with mirvaso in your blog. The one with the head title "Mirvaso; The brimonidine trial: it was not what I had hoped ..." Remove that please or make that statement. Your self tests have nothing to do with mirvaso. You probably li.ed about the dosage or in a best case scenario you forgot to mention something.

There is no such thing "as it looks now". The way it looks now is that everything is fine with all verifiable sorces and there are some negative storys on a forum that cant be verified.

Hi, I also just posted the stuff I wrote at the time here, in 2010, at the forum; no ways to change that info. As you can read there, I based the 2 mg on the brimonidine eye gel, which had 2 mg of brimonidine. Some other posters used it as a trial and 2 mg seemed a safe dose. My pharmacist agreed and said we could use the remaining 3 mg at a later stage, better use a lower potency first.
I added this info because I had it in the original forum posts and on my first blog, and I realized last night that I left huge amounts of info out on the condensed, small mentioning of it on this new blog. Kudos for picking it up so quickly.

I didnt know the exact Mirvaso mix in 2010, that is correct. I heard from a derm who was on the boards of the 3 mg range but wasn't sure and based the 2 mg on the brimonidine eye gel dose of 2 mg brimonidine. My pharmacist discussed it with me and said 2 mg would be a safe bet and we could always increase it later on. Sansrosa as it was called then was still not out yet, so how should I have known myself about the 3,3 mg brimonidine in Mirvaso? I keep repeating this as you brush over it, but I have made it clear all along that this was a brimonidine trial and not a reliable comparison to the real Mirvaso. Please read it back, its stated before, well before you started questioning this. True that this isn't on the blog below the test pics, but its here on this thread, I'll copy paste it there.

Read back the 2010 posts, again. 2 mg was mentioned there, no mystery about where that came from. Why would I lie about a dosage in august 2010, when we tested the brimonidine? I wanted the stuff to work as much as you do.

I didn't already get rebound from the eye drops, that was not clear at that point as the eye drops had preservatives in it so at that moment it was not clear if the rash and burning came from the preservative or the brimonidine. Fair trial means eliminating such variables that are not the active ingredient.

Please read Brady Barrows list of reviews and state again that "The way it looks now is that everything is fine with all verifiable sorces and there are some negative storys on a forum that cant be verified". The way it looks now is that people complaint of bad rebound flaring.

[Makron]

Hi, I also just posted the stuff I wrote at the time here, in 2010, at the forum; no ways to change that info. As you can read there, I based the 2 mg on the brimonidine eye gel, which had 2 mg of brimonidine. Some other posters used it as a trial and 2 mg seemed a safe dose. My pharmacist agreed and said we could use the remaining 3 mg at a later stage, better use a lower potency first.
I added this info because I had it in the original forum posts and on my first blog, and I realized last night that I left huge amounts of info out on the condensed, small mentioning of it on this new blog. Kudos for picking it up so quickly.

I didnt know the exact Mirvaso mix in 2010, that is correct. I heard from a derm who was on the boards of the 3 mg range but wasn't sure and based the 2 mg on the brimonidine eye gel dose of 2 mg brimonidine. My pharmacist discussed it with me and said 2 mg would be a safe bet and we could always increase it later on. Sansrosa as it was called then was still not out yet, so how should I have known myself about the 3,3 mg brimonidine in Mirvaso? I keep repeating this as you brush over it, but I have made it clear all along that this was a brimonidine trial and not a reliable comparison to the real Mirvaso. Please read it back, its stated before, well before you started questioning this. True that this isn't on the blog below the test pics, but its here on this thread, I'll copy paste it there.

Read back the 2010 posts, again. 2 mg was mentioned there, no mystery about where that came from. Why would I lie about a dosage in august 2010, when we tested the brimonidine? I wanted the stuff to work as much as you do.

I didn't already get rebound from the eye drops, that was not clear at that point as the eye drops had preservatives in it so at that moment it was not clear if the rash and burning came from the preservative or the brimonidine. Fair trial means eliminating such variables that are not the active ingredient.

Please read Brady Barrows list of reviews and state again that "The way it looks now is that everything is fine with all verifiable sorces and there are some negative storys on a forum that cant be verified". The way it looks now is that people complaint of bad rebound flaring.

Then remove this from the blog. You could not have possably done this in 2010 or any time?. This is a false statement

Or to be more precise, I discussed with my pharmacist for some time about the exact dose and mixing of the exact amount of brimonidine mcg with the exact amount of water, to get the same percentage mix as Mirvaso has of brimonidine versus carrier base, in my case water, in Mirvaso's case a enutral gel


and remove mirvaso from your headline. Your self tests have nothing to do with mirvaso.


Mirvaso; The brimonidine trial: it was not what I had hoped ...

[nat007]

The 3,3 mg from Mirvaso was not known at the time, that's an inconsistency indeed. We based dosage on the brimonidine eye gels, not on Mirvaso which wasn't out yet by then. Although there was an indication of the dosage used in Sansrosa trials but they were not official. That will be corrected. The times of tests and the difference between brimonidine trial and Mirvaso will be clarified too, as I tried in the beginning of this thread.

[David Pascoe]

Then remove this from the blog. You could not have possably done this in 2010 or any time?. This is a false statement

Or to be more precise, I discussed with my pharmacist for some time about the exact dose and mixing of the exact amount of brimonidine mcg with the exact amount of water, to get the same percentage mix as Mirvaso has of brimonidine versus carrier base, in my case water, in Mirvaso's case a enutral gel


and remove mirvaso from your headline. Your self tests have nothing to do with mirvaso.


Mirvaso; The brimonidine trial: it was not what I had hoped ...

Makron,

your tone needs to be more polite please. You cannot just order people to do things your way, that comes across as bullying.

dp.

[nat007]

Thanks David. There was an inconsistency in red which is corrected, but seems like this guy is at service for Galderma somehow.

[hg24]

Hi Brady, I've never captured a link on Twitter to a tweet. Not sure how you do that but believe I have to use a computer so I have a browser open. I'm unable to use a computer (rosacea has caused sensitivity to it ).

But I just go into the search bar and type in Mirvaso and look for mentions of it. The tweet response by Dr Doris Day was one day ago. Her handle is @DrDorisDay - so you could find that one easily. The other person tweeted around Thanksgiving and can be found with a Mirvaso search but her tweet about disregarding involves going oonto her Twitter page which I can't link to from my phone. Sorry I can't help more but hope the info helps you find the mentions.

There are a couple of Galderma people on Twitter. I first found out it had been approved by seeing the VP of Marketing's tweet. He tweeted his photo before and after Mirvaso. He has rosacea. I've wondered if he's suffered rebounding. And he's tweeted in recent months about Mirvaso roadshows where they meet with drs to showcase the drug.

I've only been on the RF as a registered participant for a few months (long time reader though . So am still learning my way around. I'm grateful to you all for your help and advocacy on this new drug and all the great advice here!

[Birdie]

Makron,

your tone needs to be more polite please. You cannot just order people to do things your way, that comes across as bullying.

dp.

Clearly this individual is on a search and destroy mission.
But succeeded only to destroy his/her/its credibility and
Welcome here. Birdie

[Starlite]

Starlite,

Found another TV news blurb that doesn't quite follow the pattern, but is close, Meg Farris of WWLTV in New Orleans reports about rosacea and the new FDA approved Mirvaso, interviews a physician, Mary Lupo, MD, of New Orleans, but does not name the patient who is shown using Mirvaso in front of a mirror. Can't use it as a positive user experience since no name is listed for the patient.

http://www.wwltv.com/news/health/Doctors-recommend-new-adult-acne-treatment-228237401.html

So apparently, each TV station has some latitude in how they report this 'new FDA approved treatment for rosacea.' We will without a doubt find more of these reports.

Well I'll be! I am so delighted to see this Doc say it should be used for special occasions. This company, if it wasn't so sociopath could make some money on this drug if marketed correctly. Greed is blind.

As for your collection of reports. They don't really show her in any way except applying the stuff. No "after" it worked images. You can use terms like "news blurb patient a or patient b" ect..

[wiry]

Well I'll be! I am so delighted to see this Doc say it should be used for special occasions. This company, if it wasn't so sociopath could make some money on this drug if marketed correctly. Greed is blind.

Yeah, I think special occasions *might* work. I may be willing to give it another try for that type of scenario (perhaps a handful of times a year) and live with the rebounds.

But very risky for regular use, any fool can see that. The problem with saving it for special occasions only is $. Galderma simply can not sell enough for it to be profitable in that mode. $ is the driving factor for Galderma. Their priority is NOT high moral conduct nor the satisfaction of patients. Is is to sell as much Mirvaso as they can (at the highest price and highest volume).

Do you think that their marketing would stop all of a sudden if they found that real world use was poor? C'mon. They have the green light from the FDA now. Sell the Mirvaso...ignore the side effects, sell more Mirvaso. Oh btw, the reps selling Mirvaso are on thin ice (Galderma had a lot of layoffs recently). If you perform poorly, you will get laid off. Don't want to be laid off just before the holidays? Better get out there and sling some Mirvaso.

The truth is that only rosacea sufferers who have tried Mirvaso really get it. The others (corporation, reps, docs) are just looking at numbers and what someone else (a financially motivated party) has told them. The end user suffers as the battle for $ goes on.

[Starlite]

Clearly this individual is on a search and destroy mission.
But succeeded only to destroy his/her/its credibility and
Welcome here. Birdie

Well said Birdie.

Back on page 93 post # 921 I said ..

It seems you have misunderstood what an allergic reaction is, what ischemia is, and how brimonidine works. I can understand so badly wanting this medication to work out well. So many people are suffering with redness and flushing and it has a profound impact on their lives. Of course you want this to work. But you have to be realistic about how this is turning out and it's not looking like it's the magic we have been waiting for.

... I gave you Makron, the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were so determined to fight against all the evidence that there was a building problem with this medication because you so badly wanted this drug to help you. This has crossed the line into something else.

As I've mentioned before, the "point" of this might be that this is how group mind set is handled. In other words, minds are controlled, opinions are "handled," and dissenters are silenced by finding the strongest argument against what you would want the group to believe and take out the person or persons who are standing against what your aim is. The goal is to sell a product and make a profit after investing a lot of time and money. The process is to discredit them as a person and as a credible voice for the opposing point of view. This can be done by labeling them as "recklessness" or a "conspiracy theorist," or blaming them for the harm that was done, also known as "blaming the victim," and in this case implying there is dishonesty. No one is fooled by this. Nat has proven herself to be a meticulous chronicler of details and facts. She provides ample links and references in most of her blog entries. She has more credibility in her tiny little typing finger then any attack that might come against her.

[Starlite]

Yeah, I think special occasions *might* work. I may be willing to give it another try for that type of scenario (perhaps a handful of times a year) and live with the rebounds.

But very risky for regular use, any fool can see that. The problem with saving it for special occasions only is $. Galderma simply can not sell enough for it to be profitable in that mode. $ is the driving factor for Galderma. Their priority is NOT high moral conduct nor the satisfaction of patients. Is is to sell as much Mirvaso as they can (at the highest price and highest volume).

Do you think that their marketing would stop all of a sudden if they found that real world use was poor? C'mon. They have the green light from the FDA now. Sell the Mirvaso...ignore the side effects, sell more Mirvaso. Oh btw, the reps selling Mirvaso are on thin ice (Galderma had a lot of layoffs recently). If you perform poorly, you will get laid off. Don't want to be laid off just before the holidays? Better get out there and sling some Mirvaso.

The truth is that only rosacea sufferers who have tried Mirvaso really get it. The others (corporation, reps, docs) are just looking at numbers and what someone else (a financially motivated party) has told them. The end user suffers as the battle for $ goes on.

Insightful summery. They are taking themselves down with the weight of their own greed and blind ambition.

[nat007]

Quote Originally Posted by Makron View Post
"Or to be more precise, I discussed with my pharmacist for some time about the exact dose and mixing of the exact amount of brimonidine mcg with the exact amount of water, to get the same percentage mix as Mirvaso has of brimonidine versus carrier base, in my case water, in Mirvaso's case a enutral gel)"

This is what you added. This was not there before. You claim you did this in 2010. You tried to get the exakt same percentage as Mirvaso?.

Mirvaso info: "Each gram of MIRVASO (brimonidine) topical gel, 0.33% contains 5 mg of the active ingredient brimonidine tartrate (equivalent to 3.3 mg of brimonidine free base)" Not sure whats the difference between brimonidine 'free base' and 'active ingredient' and in what category the pure powder falls?

You dont even understand the mirvaso dosage from your post in 2013 and you where making the exakt same mix in 2010. lol

"Must have made an error in the mcg/mg/gr in the original forum post in 2010, but that's in writing, not when I actually measured it off with the pharmacist on the phone. We tried 2 mg first, to not make it too strong, I later made a second bash with 3 mg."

oh really?. You never stated anything about 3 mg until mirvaso was released and even then you did not understand ther mirvaso dosage. Why is Mirvaso even a topic on your blog. Remove that please. Your self tests have nothing to do with mirvaso. You probably lied about the dosage or in a best case scenario you

"I knew and stated that you can't compare the home made brimonidine trial with an end product like Mirvaso. But the brimonidine rebound effect which a lot of people experience here was a right estimation and prediction as it looks now, wasn't it?"

You getting rebound when you already did not tolerate the eye drops using a home made brew with ingridients from a chinese dealer is not the right estimation for anything. Why is Mirvaso even a topic on your blog. You do not state that home made trial is not comperable with mirvaso in your blog. The one with the head title "Mirvaso; The brimonidine trial: it was not what I had hoped ..." Remove that please or make that statement. Your self tests have nothing to do with mirvaso. You probably li.ed about the dosage or in a best case scenario you forgot to mention something.
There is no such thing "as it looks now". The way it looks now is that everything is fine with all verifiable sorces and there are some negative storys on a forum that cant be verified.

Last response to Makron from me:

If you read correctly, I posted that I only bought 5 mg of brimonidine, which was brimonidine tartrate. Try googling 'Buy brimonidine powder' and see how many brimonidine free base powder options you get (its virtually all tartrate). I also wrote clearly at the time that we were basing it on the Alphagan eye drops (range between 1-2 mg/ml, I had the 2% one). They also have brimonidine tartrate listed, so obviously I tried to buy that version of the brimonidine powder. Making a mix which equals the eyedrops meant using 2 mg/ml of it, which left me 3 mg/ml. I stated in the forum posts from 2010 that I would use the remaining stuff for another trial with different amounts, so your assumptions that I am lying about the dose and the 3 mg/ml is basically poor reading assumption. I had 3 mg left to try again with.

The only incorrect thing was me adding last night that pharmacist and me worked on the right dose, which we did, but not to match the Mirvaso, as I incorrectly wrote, but to match the eye gel. And we also didn't work towards that 3mg/ml to match Mirvaso, but I knew that the eye drops had 2 mg/ml and I knew from a derm that Sansrosa was reaching towards the 3mg/ml mark. So making it sound like I am making this all up is really off. Us looking for a match with the eye gel initially was all stated in the original posts though, so no attempt to lie but simply an error of memory from me and not being precise enough. I apologized for getting the doses mixed up in my first response to you, but I take that back, I used the right amounts. The only thing missing was tartrate or free base and you could have figured that out yourself from reading the posts. I know the different measurements of these two brimonidines, simple googling was enough and if I find a manufacturer in China (did days of searching to find the most reliable one), I surely can figure out which of the two brimonidine powders I need.

And Mirvaso is and stays a topic on my blog, no matter how much you order me around. I did separate the threads though, which gives the Mirvaso thread finally the space and attention it deserves I guess and there were indeed proper differences between the brimonidine trial and what might become a Mirvaso trial if it ever gets to Europe, thats indicated better too now.

Sov gott i det vackra Sverige

[Tom Busby]

Corporations, if they were persons, would easily be considered psychopaths, because they're only concerned with their own profit.

[Starlite]

Corporations, if they were persons, would easily be considered psychopaths, because they're only concerned with their own profit.

Oddly enough, they are considered Corporate personhood

[Brady Barrows]

Corporations, if they were persons, would easily be considered psychopaths, because they're only concerned with their own profit.

I think we need to get back to Mirvaso as the subject. The biggest part of this 105 page thread is getting off the subject. Mirvaso is the subject. Stick to Mirvaso.