Cheating concepts of some skincare lines
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Fri May 09, 2008 8:20 pm

Hi, I really found many skincare lines will use certain concepts to make their products fresh, appealling or even mysterious (ie La Mer's miracle).

However, some of the concepts are really cheating, here I picked up some of them, and you gals can bring more. I know many of the products actually are doing very well, but I just want to say they are not so honest.

Valmont.

They said they were using DNA RNA technology.

Forget DNA, just for RNA. There are some molecules called RNase distributed everywhere especially on your skin (as a skin secretion), RNase will degrade RNA very frequently, that's the reason why biological labs will have very strict protocols to do RNA work ---- RNase is everywhere and they degrade RNA so fast that if you don't do certain strict, lab-special treatments, all of your RNA will disappear. So it will be really interesting to see how Valmont can keep RNA and supply RNA to our face. This gonna be a Nobel prize.

Remergent DNA repair serum.

It is said that they have a DNA repair enzyme from plankon.

Well, DNA is not allowed outside of our cells, they are in the nuclei of the cells. As a result, if some enzyme (enzyme usually refers to a protein) is going to repair your DNA, then if must pass your cell membrane , escape all the protease which degrades proteins in the cell, and pass the membrane of nuclei. As both cell membrane and nulear membrane are impermissible to proteins. However the DNA repair enzyme arrives in the DNA? And as DNA is the central actor in cell, any environmental contact with DNA is very likely to be cancer-inducible...

Amatokin

Their concept is "stem cell"

Here is their ingredient list I got from this post

http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=25408&highlight=amatokin

Amatokin Emulsion For Face (1 oz./$173): Water (Aqua), Neopentyl Glycol Dicaprylate/Dicaprate, Yeast Extract (Faex), Silica, Glycerin, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Cetearyl Alcohol, Tridecyl Trimellitate, Glycereth-26, Glyceryl Stearate, Cetyl Alcohol, Dimethicone/ Divinyldimethicone/Silsesquioxane Crosspolymer, PEG-100 Stearate, Polypeptide 153, Albumen, Cetearyl Glucoside, Phenylethyl Resorcinol, Dipeptide Diaminobutyroyol Benzylamide Diacetate, Dimethicone, Carbomer, Mica, Titanium Dioxide, Disodium Distyrylbiphenyl Disulfonate, Potassium Chloride, Polysorbate 20, PEG-8, Triethanolamine, Aluminum Hydroxide, Aluminum Chloride, Aluminum Benzoate, Disodium EDTA, Sodium Phosphate, Trisodium Phosphate, Butylene Glycol, Phenoxyethanol, Methylparaben, Propylparaben, Isobutylparaben, Butylparaben, Ethylparaben.

Can you see anything related to stem cell? Basically, the function comes from peptides and some fillings.

Peptides can treat aging. While Dimethicone/ Divinyldimethicone/Silsesquioxane Crosspolymer, Dimethicone,Aluminum Hydroxide, Aluminum Chloride, Aluminum Benzoate are just some fillings, which fill in your lines and wrinkles, leaving your skin a smooth touch, iin another word, it is just a fake feeling, no real results.

free skin care · Sat May 10, 2008 5:04 am

bushy wrote:

Januarui, I never realised you had degrees in science and medicine! If you don't then what you have written in this thread is just your opinion (which you are entitled to). Perhaps you could explain to those readers who may be tempted to believe your statements where you obtained all this knowledge or is it just hearsay.

HI, I am graduate student in biological sciences (hard to say which division, because I do both Biophyisics and Genetics). If you really doubt what I am saying, then go and check it online, there is so much knowledge there. Wikipedia is very good and it is usually right in some very professional concepts.

I totally agree that people should think more when they got some new information, but I think the way they think should be to check out more information.

Here is a link to tell you how it is impossible to have integrated RNA in environment due to RNase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNase

Here is a link telling you the basic structure of cell nucleus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_nucleus

Here is a link telling you how difficult that cell takes big, charged molecules (As I remembered , the only way cell can import proteins is engulfment, however, imported proteins are always staying in a separated liposome in the cell and then degraded.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_permeability

　

free skin care · Sat May 10, 2008 6:16 pm

i love this thread. this is the reason i decided to join this community. certainly not for the, oh! my eyelashes are lopsided threads, but for the threads in which interesting and learned contributors can share information and enlighten one another.
i appreciate the input, the resources, and the insightful comments!

--avalange

free skin care · Sat May 10, 2008 8:12 pm

Keliu wrote:

Avalange - so what is your opinion of NIA24? AND
Januarui - is Niacin the same as Niacinamide?

Skinactives sell Niacinamide for $8.50 for 5gms. They suggest adding it to 4oz of cream or lotion. I might try adding it to my emu oil - I already add CQ10.

I also agree with everything Januarui is saying about the cosmetics industry. In addition, you do not get what you pay for any more. Many skin care companies are now owned by multi-national conglomerates who specifically market and price a specific product both to high and low end consumers. For those that want luxury products, the product will be packaged better and will be twice as expensive as the exact same product aimed at the ordinary consumer. This principal also applies to the drug industry. So it is definitely a case of "buyer beware".

is Niacin the same as Niacinamide?

They are basically the same--the precursors of NAD, NADP. Well, Niacinamide is more like NAD, and neutral in pH. Niacin is acidic. I guess Niacinamide probably penetrates skin more easily if not considering the specially delivery system, because Niacinamide does not have charge.

what really matters is NAD, so as long as you can get NAD both from Niacin or Niacinamide, it will be fine. A good example will be vit C and Vit C esters et al.

free skin care · Sun May 11, 2008 9:58 pm

oh, dear crystaline,

I used to be taken for a 17 year old, my skin was so taut and poreless. Now my skin is literally riddled with huge pores everywhere, even on my forehead. The pores themselves also fuse into little lines, and I understand this to be loss of elasticity because when i pull the skin taut, it goes back to " normal." Sad

I just look older, a lot older, maybe even my age. Some people think I'm exaggerating, but to go, in a matter of months, from having perfect glowing skin to looking like I smoked my entire life (without ever smoking once) is not encouraging.
My sense is that one should only ever take the gamble if your skin is already in a badly damaged state.

--avalange
before (please not skin is a little dry and flaky from retin-a use):

after:

and side of face, before:

after:

cristaline wrote:

avalange wrote:

Sometimes I fail, as with my blind trust in copper peptides, which ruined my skin (my skin irretrievably lost elasticity, and the doctor who invented them claimed that I was "too young," at 32 to use them, so it's my fault (?!?)).

--avalange

avalange, can I ask you to elaborate on this loss of elasticity and how your skin compares now to pre-use of copper peptides? I'm sorry about your bad experience with them.

Also, wanted to add that I really enjoy this thread. I remember a while back posting about my initial opinion about Remergent DNA Repair and how it sounded like "soft science" and I got a rude reply. I later checked simple biology books and essentially confirmed what I had thought--that the science behind it is invalid. I double-checked with my dad, who is a medical doctor.

free skin care · Tue May 13, 2008 7:37 pm

Septembergirl wrote:

januarui - thank you for sharing your knowledge - and patience - on the forum.

Actually, I intended to be a "lab rat" for the KH line, as I've been for several other skin care lines. However, there are too many objections from knowledgeable people to the use of HP in skincare in general. I would like to learn more about possible long term effects, as the initial results seem to be good for the users.

I still hope Darren from PSF will log in to enlighten us, as he obviously has got first hand knowledge on this particular subject.

My suggestion is that if you have really big concerns that you would like take some risk then go ahead. If you just want some common , routine products, probably stay away from it. It is like a risk investment. If what you might get is not comparable to the risk , then don't do it. If you really have big concerns, then I think this is probably a good product to try, at least it is different from what you used before.

free skin care · Tue May 13, 2008 7:43 pm

Hello Avalange and All,

Maybe we are all lab rats in the case of non-animal tested skin care Smile

-

What I see is this: KH has been around longer than many others and is still ticking. The lab rat testing has been in effect a long time for this company and I have yet to see or read evidence of any long-term negative effects on it's various rats.
(Sorry I'm starting to find that comment humorous).

My mother used Ponds (nothing fancy) and genetics wins. She and her sister look terrific... but that's a different topic, isn't it?

I certainly don't know what Madame Herzog would look like without using her skincare line. But I think that if it was damaging one would expect it to show up. Her skin as a woman in her 70's was as good or better than in her 30's/40's - at least this is the way it appears in her video.

In any case - whatever products we choose to use - they are that.... A choice. I would venture to say that most who spend a modicum of time on this forum are more educated about what we are choosing to use than the "rest of the world", Ultimately we are trying to do what we can to maximize the most of what we have.

There have been what I think is excessive argument about Paul Herzog's research, his credentials, patents, and of course the inherent danger of HP/oxygen.... And really we are not scientists of his caliber. We can only hunt and quote and hope we will come up with something that will prove valid for our point.

On a baseline level - Truly, these products are doing some amazing things in rather short order. But that's is me and what I am finding. I have oily skin and there is no way I would've ever believed I could use these products and achieve the astounding results.

And for me - I am about evidence-based research. In other words ... Show me.... I don't want rethoric. Unless, of course we get Paul Herzog himself to appear in a mist and give us the Real Story. Because - none of us know. Do we?

Best,
Sis

Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:33 am

taojonz wrote:

For the record on this thread: FDA requirements for cosmetic labeling state that ingredients listed on the label must be listed in order from highest percentage, to lowest (in descending order). It is not "deceptive" to list essential oil, or any other ingredient last...as that simply means the smallest percentage of the product is that ingredient. That being said...it's rarely a good idea to use EO or any fragrance on the face.

This board is a wealth of information..but we must be careful on our facts!

The exception being that if they are used at a concentration of less than 1%, or, regardless of the concentration used, are a colouring agent, flavoring or parfum, they then can go randomly at the end.

2) Ingredients that are present at a concentration of 1% or less and all colouring agents, regardless of their concentration, may be listed in random order after the ingredients that are present at a concentration of more than 1%.

(3) In the case of fragrance and flavour, the words "parfum" and "aroma", respectively, may be inserted at the end of the list of ingredients to indicate that such ingredients have been added to the cosmetic to produce or to mask a particular odour or flavour.

http://gazetteducanada.gc.ca/partII/2004/20041201/html/sor244-e.html

free skin care · Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:14 am

Regardless of what OTC skincare you can buy - cheap or expensive, Retin-A is the best topical to use. It is the only one that has proven clinical evidence behind it and is the gold standard in anti-aging skincare.

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.