Comments on: Fashion magazines can be hazardous to your health

By: Miguel

Miguel — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:53:25 +0000

I wear that fragrance, it’s my favorite Mugler perfume. It’s unfortunate that she had an allergic reaction but it’s no reason to blemish the reputation of the brand or that of the product. It pleases millions of women (yes, millions), receives fantastic critical aclaim from the fashion and fragrance community, and the fact that one person happened to scratch her eyes with soiled hands after sniffing the ad does not mean the product is any less reputable. Your post is pure libel and defamation.

By: The Perfume Heretic » Alien

The Perfume Heretic » Alien — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:39:27 +0000

[...] Wood. Musk. Grape. Loud. Strong. Sublime. Allergenic. [...]

By: Derick

Derick — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:06:12 +0000

Hey there Susan, You’re a dumbass. Maybe you should do some research before blabbing out “stupidly”. I hope you discover something you’re severely allergic to when you incidentally brush your face off, or for that matter get bit by a rabid opossum.

By: Nakarti

Nakarti — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:36:44 +0000

Holy crap!
Also, being sensitive(thankfully not severely allergic) to many perfumes and colognes, I agree that insufficient research and pervasive(sometimes invasive) advertising is a fault of the makers and marketers, respectively.

Yes, it is dumb to rub your eyes if something you’ve been holding is irritating them, but it is not unreasonable to expect a magazine to not cause anaphylactic(sp?) trauma.

By: Arikia

Arikia — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:30:52 +0000

Haha word up Momma Kat.

By: momkat

momkat — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:42:18 +0000

Susan, ginormous comprehension fail for you. The word natural doesn’t appear anywhere in this post, and besides it would be irrelevant. The point is that there are lots of us in the world today who can’t tolerate many of the constituents of perfumes and colognes, and making them as pervasive as they are Is the fault of the maufacturer/marketer.

By: Arikia

Arikia — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:57:17 +0000

With all due respect, who the hell said anything about the claim of the product being “all-natural” having anything to do with this?

Please READ the post and give my cousin, and the HOSPITAL she works at a little more credit than to think seeking a prednisone shot was the FIRST attempt to halt her symptoms. Regardless, seeing as how her symptoms lasted for over FOUR days, I doubt water would have done anything substantial. You should also look up what an allergic reaction is, since you seem to be confused.

I think it is absolutely fair to criticize the manufacturer of ANY product that doesn’t conduct thorough testing on products that could potentially harm people in this fashion or any other.

By: Susan

Susan — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:42:36 +0000

With all due respect, your cousin acted very stupidly. Even a child knows better than to rub her eyes and nose with unclean hands. She might also have averted a severe reaction by immediately running lots of fresh water over her face and thoroughly scrubbing her hands. This is common knowledge for any kind of chemical interaction or irritant.

It is very unfair to criticize the manufacturer for a reaction to an “all natural” product that has been misused. “All natural” doesn’t mean the user doesn’t have a responsibility to use common sense. Butter, beef, vinegar–these are all “all natural” products but common sense dictates not to use them on our eyes. Pets and flowers are “all natural” but a lot of people are allergic to them. A little common sense goes a long way.

By: WMDKitty

WMDKitty — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:09:50 +0000

I wish they’d stop putting “samples” of perfumes in magazines.

By: Arikia

Arikia — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:16:51 +0000

Just saying what, DrugMonkey?