The most common one is conjunctival hyperemia, which occurs in more than 10% of patients. Other effects include blurred vision, eye and eyelid redness, eye burning or other discomfort, and permanent darkening of the iris to brown. Occasional adverse effects (in less than 1% of patients) are headache and nausea.Some side effects are specific to the cosmetic formulation, which is applied to the skin at the base of the eyelash rather than instilled into the eye. These include infection if the one-time applicators are reused, and darkening of the eyelid or of the area beneath the eye. Research suggests that wiping the eye with an absorbent pad after the administration of eye drops can result in shorter eyelashes and a lesser chance of hyperpigmentation in the eyelid, compared to not wiping off excess fluid. Interactions
No interaction studies with this substance have been performed. Interactions with systemic (for example, oral) drugs are considered unlikely because bimatoprost does not reach relevant concentrations in the bloodstream. Bimatoprost does not negatively interact with timolol eye drops. Pharmacology
Mechanism of action
Bimatoprost is a structural analog of prostaglandin F2α (PGF2α). Like other PGF2α analogs such as travoprost, latanoprost and tafluprost, it increases the outflow of aqueous fluid from the eye and lowers intraocular pressure. However, in contrast to these it does not act on the prostaglandin F receptor, nor on any other known prostaglandin receptor.
It seems to many people that causality is some existing relationship in the world that we can harness for our desires. If causality is identified with our manipulation, then this intuition is lost. In this sense, it makes humans overly central to interactions in the world. Some attempts to defend manipulability theories are recent accounts that do not claim to reduce causality to manipulation. These accounts use manipulation as a sign or feature in causation without claiming that manipulation is more fundamental than causation. Process theories
Some theorists are interested in distinguishing between causal processes and non-causal processes (Russell 1948; Salmon 1984). These theorists often want to distinguish between a process and a pseudo-process. As an example, a ball moving through the air (a process) is contrasted with the motion of a shadow (a pseudo-process). The former is causal in nature while the latter is not. Salmon (1984) claims that causal processes can be identified by their ability to transmit an alteration over space and time. An alteration of the ball (a mark by a pen, perhaps) is carried with it as the ball goes through the air. On the other hand, an alteration of the shadow (insofar as it is possible) will not be transmitted by the shadow as it moves along. These theorists claim that the important concept for understanding causality is not causal relationships or causal interactions, but rather identifying causal processes. The former notions can then be defined in terms of causal processes.