First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Teenage girl left looking like alien after hair dye causes severe allergic reaction
4856 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / London, England
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08

chaosthao_09 wrote:


sycodan wrote:


chaosthao_09 wrote:

gosh that was unfortunate for her. hope she doesn't get to blow her candles looking like that.


not being mean by saying this but that's if she can even see them cause her eyes are supposed to be damaged


i suppose you are right. but it ssays in the article that she can barely open her eyes, so i assume that she can probably see.any ways that her lost


well they will most likely sue the company for lots of money so maybe when she is better that will make up for what happened to her
1168 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / heyusa
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08
i don't know about that but maybe she or her parents should have read that warning description first before they use it. but on the other hand if i was that the company had put some other substance it there that they are not suppose to put in the chemical base then i suppose they can sue the company.
4856 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / London, England
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08

chaosthao_09 wrote:

i don't know about that but maybe she or her parents should have read that warning description first before they use it. but on the other hand if i was that the company had put some other substance it there that they are not suppose to put in the chemical base then i suppose they can sue the company.


yea that is a good point but it says in the article they did the 48 hour strand test to make sure she was NOT alergic to any of the ingredients or chemicals in the hair dye so if she still become unwell after this test was done then they might be in serious trouble?
5796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Santa Destroy
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08

memphit wrote:

Are you sure it wasn't the wonka 3-course-meal bubble gum she was chewing?


LMAO
1168 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / heyusa
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08

sycodan wrote:


chaosthao_09 wrote:

i don't know about that but maybe she or her parents should have read that warning description first before they use it. but on the other hand if i was that the company had put some other substance it there that they are not suppose to put in the chemical base then i suppose they can sue the company.


yea that is a good point but it says in the article they did the 48 hour strand test to make sure she was NOT alergic to any of the ingredients or chemicals in the hair dye so if she still become unwell after this test was done then they might be in serious trouble?


i think that depends on if they actually preformed the test as the intructions intructed. and i think that if they did then they maybe can look into the company and try to dig somethnig up. but i think that the chances of her finding something is slim. although if she and her family finds something, i think that i can teach the society something, and if it was just a allergic reation to something that she didn't discover about herself then she will learn to not use a product containing of the basic substance that is in the hair dye. it makes me also think if the product that she use, was it like FDA aproved too? i doubt that it is thought. and if the product was not approved then there is a even more slim chance of her sueing the company, unless she gets a pretty damn good attorney
4856 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / London, England
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08

chaosthao_09 wrote:


sycodan wrote:


chaosthao_09 wrote:

i don't know about that but maybe she or her parents should have read that warning description first before they use it. but on the other hand if i was that the company had put some other substance it there that they are not suppose to put in the chemical base then i suppose they can sue the company.


yea that is a good point but it says in the article they did the 48 hour strand test to make sure she was NOT alergic to any of the ingredients or chemicals in the hair dye so if she still become unwell after this test was done then they might be in serious trouble?


i think that depends on if they actually preformed the test as the intructions intructed. and i think that if they did then they maybe can look into the company and try to dig somethnig up. but i think that the chances of her finding something is slim. although if she and her family finds something, i think that i can teach the society something, and if it was just a allergic reation to something that she didn't discover about herself then she will learn to not use a product containing of the basic substance that is in the hair dye. it makes me also think if the product that she use, was it like FDA aproved too? i doubt that it is thought. and if the product was not approved then there is a even more slim chance of her sueing the company, unless she gets a pretty damn good attorney


well at the end of day if they do take this to court it's gonna be some massive battle with a big company the company may just settle to save time and money but then again .... i don't see them just giveing up if that was to happen, besides like you said they have no evidence that they did do the test properly and that is most likely something the hair company will use?
1234 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / z
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08
haha pwned
1168 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / heyusa
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08

sycodan wrote:


chaosthao_09 wrote:


sycodan wrote:


chaosthao_09 wrote:

i don't know about that but maybe she or her parents should have read that warning description first before they use it. but on the other hand if i was that the company had put some other substance it there that they are not suppose to put in the chemical base then i suppose they can sue the company.


yea that is a good point but it says in the article they did the 48 hour strand test to make sure she was NOT alergic to any of the ingredients or chemicals in the hair dye so if she still become unwell after this test was done then they might be in serious trouble?


i think that depends on if they actually preformed the test as the intructions intructed. and i think that if they did then they maybe can look into the company and try to dig somethnig up. but i think that the chances of her finding something is slim. although if she and her family finds something, i think that i can teach the society something, and if it was just a allergic reation to something that she didn't discover about herself then she will learn to not use a product containing of the basic substance that is in the hair dye. it makes me also think if the product that she use, was it like FDA aproved too? i doubt that it is thought. and if the product was not approved then there is a even more slim chance of her sueing the company, unless she gets a pretty damn good attorney


well at the end of day if they do take this to court it's gonna be some massive battle with a big company the company may just settle to save time and money but then again .... i don't see them just giveing up if that was to happen, besides like you said they have no evidence that they did do the test properly and that is most likely something the hair company will use?


well like i have said we don't know the truth so as viewers of the article we can only come up with so little information, but hopefully everyone learns from reading the article. plus who are we to be saying that the company did wrong or the victim of the hair dye did wrong.we can only assume
4856 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / London, England
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08

chaosthao_09 wrote:


sycodan wrote:


chaosthao_09 wrote:


sycodan wrote:


chaosthao_09 wrote:

i don't know about that but maybe she or her parents should have read that warning description first before they use it. but on the other hand if i was that the company had put some other substance it there that they are not suppose to put in the chemical base then i suppose they can sue the company.


yea that is a good point but it says in the article they did the 48 hour strand test to make sure she was NOT alergic to any of the ingredients or chemicals in the hair dye so if she still become unwell after this test was done then they might be in serious trouble?


i think that depends on if they actually preformed the test as the intructions intructed. and i think that if they did then they maybe can look into the company and try to dig somethnig up. but i think that the chances of her finding something is slim. although if she and her family finds something, i think that i can teach the society something, and if it was just a allergic reation to something that she didn't discover about herself then she will learn to not use a product containing of the basic substance that is in the hair dye. it makes me also think if the product that she use, was it like FDA aproved too? i doubt that it is thought. and if the product was not approved then there is a even more slim chance of her sueing the company, unless she gets a pretty damn good attorney


well at the end of day if they do take this to court it's gonna be some massive battle with a big company the company may just settle to save time and money but then again .... i don't see them just giveing up if that was to happen, besides like you said they have no evidence that they did do the test properly and that is most likely something the hair company will use?


well like i have said we don't know the truth so as viewers of the article we can only come up with so little information, but hopefully everyone learns from reading the article. plus who are we to be saying that the company did wrong or the victim of the hair dye did wrong.we can only assume


That is a very good point ... at the end of the day i suppose we just dont want other people getting hurt by what happened and the hair companys might do more reasearch on hair products
3769 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08

pyromaniachaos777 wrote:


memphit wrote:

Are you sure it wasn't the wonka 3-course-meal bubble gum she was chewing?


LMAO

At least someone appreciated it.
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08
OMG! I'm using loreal too!!
gawd, am I lucky to not have those allergies that was freaky! she must have used more than necessary when she tested it... I dunno
or maybe she has a lot of allergies or too sensitive..(not sure)
1168 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / heyusa
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08

sycodan wrote:


chaosthao_09 wrote:


sycodan wrote:


chaosthao_09 wrote:


sycodan wrote:


chaosthao_09 wrote:

i don't know about that but maybe she or her parents should have read that warning description first before they use it. but on the other hand if i was that the company had put some other substance it there that they are not suppose to put in the chemical base then i suppose they can sue the company.


yea that is a good point but it says in the article they did the 48 hour strand test to make sure she was NOT alergic to any of the ingredients or chemicals in the hair dye so if she still become unwell after this test was done then they might be in serious trouble?


i think that depends on if they actually preformed the test as the intructions intructed. and i think that if they did then they maybe can look into the company and try to dig somethnig up. but i think that the chances of her finding something is slim. although if she and her family finds something, i think that i can teach the society something, and if it was just a allergic reation to something that she didn't discover about herself then she will learn to not use a product containing of the basic substance that is in the hair dye. it makes me also think if the product that she use, was it like FDA aproved too? i doubt that it is thought. and if the product was not approved then there is a even more slim chance of her sueing the company, unless she gets a pretty damn good attorney


well at the end of day if they do take this to court it's gonna be some massive battle with a big company the company may just settle to save time and money but then again .... i don't see them just giveing up if that was to happen, besides like you said they have no evidence that they did do the test properly and that is most likely something the hair company will use?


well like i have said we don't know the truth so as viewers of the article we can only come up with so little information, but hopefully everyone learns from reading the article. plus who are we to be saying that the company did wrong or the victim of the hair dye did wrong.we can only assume


That is a very good point ... at the end of the day i suppose we just dont want other people getting hurt by what happened and the hair companys might do more reasearch on hair products


i hope that the company and the parents just don't go in a big riot about what happen but consider the health of the victim and everyone who might be affected from this issue. and take it light.
47470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Birmingham
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08
Eep. poor girl.
2613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Behind you.
Offline
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08
OMFG. Good thing I've seen this thread. A million thanks! I was planning to dye my hair prolly after a few weeks with Loreal Casting Creme Gloss but now... OMG I was saved from looking like an alien!

Did L'Oreal defend their product?
Posted 4/9/08 , edited 4/21/08
why would she take a picture of herself with that face?!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.