Reductionist Skincare
I recently had the pleasure of traveling to Salt Lake City, Utah to sit down the film producer Jeff Hays. Jeff and I met several months prior at the Wise Traditions conference. Jeff is filming a four-part series of documentary movies for the Make America Health Again movement around medicine, food, big pharma, and farming.
It was such an incredible honor when he asked me to come to his studio and film content for these movies. In addition to an amazing filmmaker, Jeff is an accomplished entrepreneur with numerous startups and exits to his credit. He is the author of “The Entrepreneurial Brain”, which I’ve just completed…record time for me and books. What the heck does any of this have to do with the title of this blog? I’m glad you asked.
You’ve heard the term ‘reductionist science’ before, yes? This is the process where we reduce a complex situation down to a singular part of the process—or a singular input.
The best example I can give—relating to agriculture—is conclusion that was reached that methane emissions from cows are somehow bad for the planet…because it is releasing methane into the air. What isn’t talked about in that process is that the methane release from ruminant animals has a 10-year cycle whereby that methane is returned to the earth in the form of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). This is the biogenic carbon cycle and it’s been going on for millions of years. Another point that is overlooked is that this process is not creating NEW carbon dioxide, but simply returning the carbon dioxide consumed by plants back into the atmosphere.
Charles—we get it…but again, what the heck does this have to do with skincare?
For years, the skincare industry takes a very reductionist approach to testing and demonstrating the effectiveness of treatments. In other words, if we reduce skin health down to individual chronic conditions or symptoms, they can target a specific condition/symptom with a specific ingredient or product.
What we get from “reductionist skincare” are a litany of different products, routines and prescriptions that address these reductionist problems.
Time for an intuitive question relating to this & skincare:
If something works well for sunburn relief, doesn’t it seem intuitive that it would also work well for wrinkles, eczema, rosacea, or razor burn?
I want you to think long and hard about that question and apply your God-given intuition to the answer—we hope you concluded with a definitive YES! Doesn’t that make the most sense? The old saying goes “Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander!”
Back to Jeff Hays—one of the tenants of his book on entrepreneurism is the idea of a ‘paradox’. For context, the idea that one things, in business, can be true—while the opposite can be true also.
It is with this paradoxical mindset that I wish to close this post out. Put on your intuitive thinking cap.
We’ve covered the downside to Reductionist Skincare and how it has created dozens of products to deal with dozens of skin problems. What if we can flip Reductionist Skincare on it’s side and actually reduce the number of products you need down to just a few?
This is Farrow’s fourth year in business. I get in a ton of trouble making any claims about our products—and I’m not making any claims now. However, not a week goes by that we don’t get a testimonial or customer feedback about what “Farrow did for Them!”
Is it possible for a single skincare product to help with any conceivable problem—we think so.
If you know anyone that is suffering from any of the following skin problems, it might be worth telling them to toss their dozens of ineffective products in the garbage and give Farrow a try:
Windburn • Razor Burn • Eczema • Psoriasis • Wrinkles • Dark Spots
Scars • Bug Bites • Sun Burn • Rosacea • Cracked Cuticles • Dry Scalp
Let’s lean into the Paradox of Reductionist Skincare and reduce our product needs from dozens down to just a few. Our FaceFood, SkinFood, & EpicDermis have all shown tremendous efficacy at giving people serious relief from these conditions.
