Unveiling FemiClear: Questioning Claims and Ethics in Herpes Treatment
A while back, I made a post entitled, “Is this legit.” The post included tips for determining if companies and their products held up to their claims.
That post was inspired by FemiClear, a company that I am increasingly seeing more of in the herpes advocacy space. At the time, I didn’t feel a need to expose them, but the increase in advertising has me turning to my inner @drjengunter.
FemiClear approached me twice to partner with them, and I declined. Here is why I did, and why you should be wary of FemiClear.
1. The brand name: FemiClear. It further reinforces the existence of a gender binary. Herpes symptoms present the same across all genitals, so why is this company continuing to force gender upon them? This not only enforces a binary, but excludes non-binary folks. This is further evidenced by the recent release of H-Clear for Him. There are no gender specific antivirals, and we do not need gender specific treatments.
2. The language: similarly, the language used to describe the genitals reinforces discomfort, shame, and secrecy. It’s not a “hoo-has” it’s a vulva. The company also differentiates HClear for him with a “vet over amber scent” and darker packaging (ps do we think they tested that?) presumably to differentiate it as more masculine. Yet FemiClear uses the same one study to legitimize the science behind both products.
3. The science: the brand claims scientific studies and boasts products as “lab tested.” When opening the lab report, one will see details about the three-page study, sponsored by Organicare, LLC. FemiClear boasts “over 90% of women***” who tried the product reported a variety of symptom relief… yet
If one scrolls to the bottom of the page, they’ll learn that *** means, “As self-reported in a comprehensive IRB study of 50 women diagnoses and actively experiencing a genital herpes outbreak. These women received modest compensation..”
What FemiClear neglects to tell you, is that: 1) this is one study; 2) this does not reveal any information about the participants; 3) the participants were compensated; 4) this is not FDA evaluated or approved; and 5) does not have recommendations for future research.