 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
havana8
Moderator
 
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 3451
|
|
 |
Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:12 am  |
I'm not sure where this discussion should begin but I'll move a few pertinent posts over to get things started: 
From the ISCO Stem Cell: Lifeline Skin Care thread:
| Lotusesther wrote: |
Well I am glad dr J has joined the forum. Even though I still can not imagine anything relating to stem cells can be for the time being really truly effective in over the counter skin care.
There are so many drs selling skin care, with varying results. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and even then individual results in skin care do not necessarily mean everyone can have the same benefits. Basically we are all guinea pigs, aren't we? |
| Keliu wrote: |
| What I'm not understanding is this: If there really is a serum that will alter the way our cells respond - wouldn't it be classified as a pharmaceutical and controlled by the FDA (or similar)? |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
Keliu I think the problem would be if there was such a serum, how to control the effects? Unlimited proliferation isn't what we are looking for, is it?
That is what is bothering me. For very old people this may not be a real problem but sometimes I read here what young women with more than 60 years ahead of them are putting on their skin and that makes me shudder. Anything that tries to sell itself screaming 'dna' is a no-no for me, since alterations in dna can spell real Trouble with a capital T. And I am past the age of having children. |
| DrJ wrote: |
| There seems to be some confusion about stem cell products - what they are. The current products are not cells in a cream. Rather it has been discovered that oif you grow stem cells in culture they make lots of chemicals called cytokines (some of which are growth factors). And if you use this as an active you get some stellar results. There is actually lots of evidence for this, from many sources. In fact it is the same SkinMedica uses for its TNS serum which has been around for a decade, although just use fibroblasts, not stem cells. |
| Keliu wrote: |
DrJ - I'm fully aware that current stemcell serums don't contain stem cells. It's my understanding that they contain the media which is used to grow the stemcells - is that correct.
However, isn't this media supposed to re-generate our own stemcells? Or have I got that wrong. If it's not regenerating our own stemcells, what is it doing? |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
My uneducated guess would be that if it really could stimulate your own stem cells to proliferate and specialise it would have to be delivered into the right layer of skin in the first place. That is pretty deep, and I wonder if any, any topical whatsoever can and will reach that layer. Let alone enter the appropriate cells. It's one thing to have loose cells in vitro respond to whatever you add to the medium they are floating in, skin itself has its mechanisms to prevent stuff from outside getting in, or getting in too deeply.
That also seems to be the disappointing point on the effectiveness of 'proven' topicals - in vitro they deliver all right, but to get them into the skin into the right place is another story. |
| DrJ wrote: |
Lotusesther: yes, of course absorption is an issue, but it does happen. Cytokines are basically peptides of varying sizes. They can be enveloped in a liposome or solid lipid nanoparticle, which greatly enhances penetration.
The thing about these cytokines is that they are the communication system for cells, including skin cells. They are not drugs at all, but entirely natural, although they have to be in a "physiologic balance" or else you can get untoward effects. So, in a way (think about it) the stem cells in culture secrete chemicals which you put on your skin which then go and talk to the cells there (not just stem cells, but keratinocytes, fibroblasts, etc). Sort of a long distance conversation. They make be from another (healthy, young) human, but they are identical to your own. No DNA or other worrisome things like that. Now if you can get they to say the right thing (e.g. "heal") you get some very nice effects. |
| rileygirl wrote: |
Interesting article for anyone interested in stem cells. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17012688
My one concern on topical stem cell products is safety, and this remark from the article scares me. Stem cells, which can transform into any other type of specialised cell. This brings me back to my question at the beginning of this thread, if a person has the genetic predisposition for cancer, what happens when they apply a stem cell product. |
| DrJ wrote: |
| rileygirl wrote: |
Interesting article for anyone interested in stem cells. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17012688
My one concern on topical stem cell products is safety, and this remark from the article scares me. Stem cells, which can transform into any other type of specialised cell. This brings me back to my question at the beginning of this thread, if a person has the genetic predisposition for cancer, what happens when they apply a stem cell product. |
If you have a predilection for cancer, or even have one you don't know about, therre is a theoretical risk of adding pure growth factors, like EGF. But a balanced arrays of cytokines should actually be somewhat protective, as c=some of them are actually immune vigilent. |
From the Ingredient Spotlight: Renovage/Teprenone & EGF thread:
| DrJ wrote: |
Conditioned medium (of stem cells, and before that fibroblasts) has been around for a decade. That it has a profound effect on wound healing, collagen production, and many other parameters. Which is the model scientists most often use to create anti-aging, anti-wrinkle stuff in the lab.
That it works is really non-controversial. Lots of supporting literature. There is an entire chapter devoted to it in the most prominent textbook in the field, Textbook of Aging Skin (Farage, Miller, Maibach, eds.). I'm writing a review paper and will share that at the appropriate time.
There is no ewww factor. Somebody is trying to bias you. Specialized (very clean virus free, etc) cells under given conditions produce lots of proteins. This isn’t “waste” or some “discard” -- it’s more like panning for gold. We have learned how to farm these specialized healing cells and to maximize their production of the good stuff (cytokines & growth factors). How do you suppose any protein drug is made. Or EGF for that matter (we will ignore the transgenic barley people for a moment). You take e.coli or some other bacteria and transfect it to transfer a gene into it so that it produced lots of whatever protein you want. Then you purify it. Do you think specialized human cells are more, or less, ewwwy that gut bacteria?
The thing about these cells, and the cytokines and growth factors that they produce, is that we are talking about something that is entirely natural. These mesenchymal stem cells are our body’s natural producers of healing biochemicals.
There is a wonderful peer-reviewed journal paper I am referencing a lot in something I am currently writing, it is … The MSC: An Injury Drugstore (Cell Stem Cell, Volume 9, Issue 1, 8 July 2011, 1115). MSC is mesenchymal stem cell, the basis for our work. The paper gathers all sorts of new evidence for the wonderful things these cells do, and how they do it.
I do not know who this Hannah is, but it is clear that she is not a cell biologist, doesn’t read the current literature, and has little or no understanding of cytokines and growth factors and their role in regenerative medicine and dermatology.
For instance, giving pure EGF (e.g. grown in transfected e.coli, or genetically modified barley) is fraught with problems, which I documented very clearly in a BFT post some time ago (someone else needs to insert a link). I won’t repeat myself on the dangers, but it includes the risk of accelerating early skin cancers (not necessarily causing them). Since 50% of people over 50 get skin cancer at some point, it is a calculated risk.,
But when a cocktail containing a blend of cytokines and growth factors, formulated not by humans but by these very clever cells, you can get the good effects without the bad. In fact, in 3 clinical trials, I have yet to see an adverse effect. It’s because we are mimicking nature. We aim to replicate what your own body would do when you were a newborn.
ISCO does use conditioned medium, but they further process it, as we do. Unless they have figured out a way to train their stem cells to transfer these cytokines directly into a bottle. I doubt it. You would need a lot of very small bottles.
Stemulation uses conditioned medium. I know because I was one who originally created that product (at least the stem cell part). I no longer have anything to do with that company. I consider that my first generation, but we are now working on a 4th generation.
We (myself and my colleagues at the stem cell institute) have spent 2 ½ years in R&D, going way beyond what I did back then. The science has advanced considerably.
I am not as familiar with Osmosis, but IO would guess that they are using the same protocols as Stemulation – get the cells to grow in culture, make them happy, and they go into a “growth cytokine pattern”
Cytokines are also known as “signaling peptides” They are small proteins that cells send out to talk to one another. It’s like the signal corps, rallying the troops. Some of the peptides present in current skin care products derive from scientists attempts to create artificial versions of these same natural peptides (cytokines). They strip off a few (noncritical) amino acids, then test them to find out the core bit that works. This allows them to patent the molecule (because you can’t patent the ones that nature makes).
I hope this helps. Open for questions and challenges. |
| DrJ wrote: |
This is not for everyone, so only read if you are not put off by deep science & complex terms. This comes for the COPE site (Cytokines & Cells Online Pathfinder Encyclopedia).
"EGF, like all growth factors, binds to specific high-affinity, low-capacity receptors on the surface of responsive cells. Intrinsic to the EGF receptor is tyrosine kinase activity, which is activated in response to EGF binding. The kinase domain of the EGF receptor phosphorylates the EGF receptor itself (autophosphorylation) as well as other proteins, in signal transduction cascades, that associate with the receptor following activation. Experimental evidence has shown that the Neu proto-oncogene is a homologue of the EGF receptor.
EGF has proliferative effects on cells of both mesodermal and ectodermal origin, particularly keratinocytes and fibroblasts. EGF exhibits negative growth effects ... on hair follicle cells. Growth-related responses to EGF include the induction of nuclear proto-oncogene expression, such as Fos, Jun and Myc. EGF also has the effect of decreasing gastric acid secretion."
Oncogenes are those genes that when stimulated can lead to cancer formation. We've discussed the problem with hair follicles before. (look at we-based advocates of EGF who sell it on their websites. Look at videos and pics. Notice their hairlines.) Good for heartburn though, if you don't mind going bald (they use it in the sheep industry to get the wool to fall off). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:50 am |
| havana8 wrote: |
| I'm not sure where this discussion should begin but I'll move a few pertinent posts over to get things started: |
Thank you so much havana8!!
My favorite topic has it's own thread now! Yeah!! I've already said a lot on the subject, but of course it is pretty deep. Keeps me humble, for sure, always learning. So I am open to questions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:22 pm |
How about your take on various plant derived stem cell products on the market and also sold by suppliers for DIY purposes?
I know my simplistic thoughts since they were brought out, I never believed that a stem cell from a plant could communicate with human cells and therefore would have no benefit to our skin. I prefer to eat an apple or whatever.  |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:59 pm |
| DarkMoon wrote: |
How about your take on various plant derived stem cell products on the market and also sold by suppliers for DIY purposes?
I know my simplistic thoughts since they were brought out, I never believed that a stem cell from a plant could communicate with human cells and therefore would have no benefit to our skin. I prefer to eat an apple or whatever. |
DarkMoon, We have a whole post on plant stem cells over at barefacedtruth. I don't think I'm allowed to do a link there, but maybe one of our roomies here could do so.
You are right - they speak different languages. What would your skin do with the message "damaged branch, let's kill it off". Or "grow me a new leaf here". Let's hope it never figures out the language - could have negative consequences. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:31 pm |
That's the one. Thanks to Dr George. Ready for questions & challenges.
It really strikes me that this is a prime example of how gullible the ingredients industry must think we all are. Stem cells are good. We think plants have stem cells (they are really not quite). We can't be bothered by human cell biology -- we need a cheap substitute. So we will just grind up some plant material (which must have a few stem cells in there) and call it stem cell extract. Oh, and to help the marketing story, we will say they are from some rare apple trees (I guess near extinction gives them special properties).
The product makers don't give a rip - they really on these phony stories to sell their concoctions.
Where does most of this junk science originate? France (& Switzerland). Not throwing stones, just pointing it out. France (home of rude and malodorous waiters with no such thing as a nonsmoking section) is the prime suspect. I think it makes up a significant chunk of their GDP. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:03 pm |
The meristem extract from oaks has been around for some time as a cure for skin allergies and itches etc. It sounds more like something from a homeopathic/herbal remedy kind of background, which would place it rather in Germany or Austria.
There are some French members on this forum btw. Maybe even waiters or waiter's wives. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:35 pm |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
The meristem extract from oaks has been around for some time as a cure for skin allergies and itches etc. It sounds more like something from a homeopathic/herbal remedy kind of background, which would place it rather in Germany or Austria.
There are some French members on this forum btw. Maybe even waiters or waiter's wives. |
Yes but they would have to be rude, chain smoking French waiters. All others are OK as long as they don't make whacky science skin ingredients. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:34 pm |
Thanks Lacy 53. This is an important paper. Wish I could share the version with graphs & tables, but it's copyrighted.
SkinMedica under Dr. Fitzpatrick really pioneered the concept of cytokines & growth factors IN PHYSIOLOGICAL BALANCE in anti-aging medicine. Note that this article from 2009 specifically decries the practice of single growth factors like EGF. The balance part is critical. The individual cytokines & GF's are like letters, but put together they make words & paragraphs. Instructions for healing wounds, or rejuvenation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:17 pm |
| DarkMoon wrote: |
How about your take on various plant derived stem cell products on the market and also sold by suppliers for DIY purposes?
I know my simplistic thoughts since they were brought out, I never believed that a stem cell from a plant could communicate with human cells and therefore would have no benefit to our skin. I prefer to eat an apple or whatever. |
Here is Donna Queen's take on plant stem cells.
http://www.lifelineskincare.com/blog/2011/10/plant-stem-cells-vs-human-stem-cells/
Everybody’s talking about stem cells. But not everybody understands them. The cosmetics industry seems to like it that way, but the rest of us are left wondering what to believe.
At Lifeline Skin Care, we’d like to change that.
First, let’s talk about what plant stem cells and human stem cells have in common.
Stem cells—whether they are plant based or human-based– continue to divide and regenerate indefinitely. They’re responsible for growth and wound repair in living organisms. There’s no doubt that plant stem cells are necessary for plants. How they benefit human skin is much harder to understand. Many scientists think that plant cells are a good source of nutrients to human skin, but have no other benefits.
There are several skincare creams based on plant stem cells—sometimes they’re derived from melons; usually they’re apple stem cells. Unlike the apples sold in grocery stores, which are likely Macintosh or Granny Smith or some other tasty variety, apple stem cells used for skincare frequently come from Uttwiler Spatlauber apples—a variety known for the longevity of the tree.
Apple stem cells clearly work for apples. Watermelon stem cells are perfect for watermelons. But they don’t have any benefits to humans unless, as InStyle wrote, “you want to look like a tree”. One plant stem cell skincare brand claims to produce more collagen and elastin. There’s no scientific evidence of that, and their ability to proliferate skin cells, repair wounds or stimulate collagen and elastin in people is limited, at best.
So why does our skin need stem cells at all? Beginning at age 30, our skin’s cellular activity slows, and therefore:
It’s not as efficient distributing water to the surface of your skin. Your skin becomes dull.
Cellular proliferation slows, so older, damaged skin cells remain on the surface of the skin. Your skin becomes thinner, duller, less vibrant.
Collagen and elastin production slows down. Wrinkles, hyperpigmentation and skin laxity begin to show in your 30’s and become more obvious with each passing year.
Natural oils decrease, so your skin becomes drier and therefore duller.
Everything gets a little weaker—including telomerase, the agent that continually rebuilds DNA. It becomes more and more difficult for your skin to produce new skin cells.
It’s the job of stem cells to accelerate the turnover of damaged skin, and replace aged skin cells with new and healthy ones.
Lifeline Skin Care is the only skincare brand based on human non-embryonic stem cells. The source of the stem cells are oocytes (human eggs) which have been chemically activated to develop to a stage where stem cells can be extracted without ever having been fertilized.
The “hero” ingredients are the growth factors which are extracted from the stem cells. They boost the natural growth agents that decline after age 30. There are literally hundreds of different types of growth factors but the ones that are most important for skin are the ones that regulate collagen and elastin production and affect cellular proliferation such as epidermal, vascular endothelial, fibroblast, and keratinocyte growth factors. These “messaging molecules” communicate with your skin’s own cells and program them to act like they were much younger.
The result: your skin will become thicker, it will act healthier and therefore appear younger.
(She looks completely different than what I pictured from when she used to post here about ZO Skin Health but she has great skin) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:05 pm |
| jom wrote: |
| DarkMoon wrote: |
How about your take on various plant derived stem cell products on the market and also sold by suppliers for DIY purposes?
I know my simplistic thoughts since they were brought out, I never believed that a stem cell from a plant could communicate with human cells and therefore would have no benefit to our skin. I prefer to eat an apple or whatever. |
Here is Donna Queen's take on plant stem cells.
http://www.lifelineskincare.com/blog/2011/10/plant-stem-cells-vs-human-stem-cells/
Everybody’s talking about stem cells. But not everybody understands them. The cosmetics industry seems to like it that way, but the rest of us are left wondering what to believe.
At Lifeline Skin Care, we’d like to change that.
First, let’s talk about what plant stem cells and human stem cells have in common.
Stem cells—whether they are plant based or human-based– continue to divide and regenerate indefinitely. They’re responsible for growth and wound repair in living organisms. There’s no doubt that plant stem cells are necessary for plants. How they benefit human skin is much harder to understand. Many scientists think that plant cells are a good source of nutrients to human skin, but have no other benefits.
There are several skincare creams based on plant stem cells—sometimes they’re derived from melons; usually they’re apple stem cells. Unlike the apples sold in grocery stores, which are likely Macintosh or Granny Smith or some other tasty variety, apple stem cells used for skincare frequently come from Uttwiler Spatlauber apples—a variety known for the longevity of the tree.
Apple stem cells clearly work for apples. Watermelon stem cells are perfect for watermelons. But they don’t have any benefits to humans unless, as InStyle wrote, “you want to look like a tree”. One plant stem cell skincare brand claims to produce more collagen and elastin. There’s no scientific evidence of that, and their ability to proliferate skin cells, repair wounds or stimulate collagen and elastin in people is limited, at best.
So why does our skin need stem cells at all? Beginning at age 30, our skin’s cellular activity slows, and therefore:
It’s not as efficient distributing water to the surface of your skin. Your skin becomes dull.
Cellular proliferation slows, so older, damaged skin cells remain on the surface of the skin. Your skin becomes thinner, duller, less vibrant.
Collagen and elastin production slows down. Wrinkles, hyperpigmentation and skin laxity begin to show in your 30’s and become more obvious with each passing year.
Natural oils decrease, so your skin becomes drier and therefore duller.
Everything gets a little weaker—including telomerase, the agent that continually rebuilds DNA. It becomes more and more difficult for your skin to produce new skin cells.
It’s the job of stem cells to accelerate the turnover of damaged skin, and replace aged skin cells with new and healthy ones.
Lifeline Skin Care is the only skincare brand based on human non-embryonic stem cells. The source of the stem cells are oocytes (human eggs) which have been chemically activated to develop to a stage where stem cells can be extracted without ever having been fertilized.
The “hero” ingredients are the growth factors which are extracted from the stem cells. They boost the natural growth agents that decline after age 30. There are literally hundreds of different types of growth factors but the ones that are most important for skin are the ones that regulate collagen and elastin production and affect cellular proliferation such as epidermal, vascular endothelial, fibroblast, and keratinocyte growth factors. These “messaging molecules” communicate with your skin’s own cells and program them to act like they were much younger.
The result: your skin will become thicker, it will act healthier and therefore appear younger.
(She looks completely different than what I pictured from when she used to post here about ZO Skin Health but she has great skin) |
Donna Queen needs to get her facts straight. It is not "the job of stem cells to accelerate the turnover of damaged skin, and replace aged skin cells with new and healthy ones". That's the role of basal cells, which are not stem cells. There are stem cell sin skin, but that is not what they do.
Then there are non-science errors. Start with history. "Lifeline Skin Care is the only skincare brand based on human non-embryonic stem cells." Not at all true. There have been more than a half dozen. I was responsible for two of them. And BTW, the NIH considers parthenogenic stem cells to be embryonic. They are non-fertized embryos, but embryos just the same (by induction -- fooling mother nature). |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:48 pm |
| DrJ wrote: |
| There are stem cell sin skin, but that is not what they do. |
I know you've probably said this before, but what do the stem cells in skin do? TIA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:41 pm |
| I wonder if this Tns Essential serum is safe in the long run... apart from the many parabenes Paula Begoun mentions the possible danger. You can find an article on this at the beautypedia site under Skinmedica. I cannot post the link yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:00 pm |
| Miss Wisteria wrote: |
| I wonder if this Tns Essential serum is safe in the long run... apart from the many parabenes Paula Begoun mentions the possible danger. You can find an article on this at the beautypedia site under Skinmedica. I cannot post the link yet. |
Hi Miss W. - I just replied to your comment over at barefacedtruth. TNS has long track record of safety. I pointed out there that the article was maybe a bit old, and certainly not in tune with modern concepts in cell biology as applied to skin. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:15 pm |
Most of the wrinkle reduction shown in the photos is extremely subtle (especially at the 1 and 2 month mark photos). |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:22 pm |
| rileygirl wrote: |
Most of the wrinkle reduction shown in the photos is extremely subtle (especially at the 1 and 2 month mark photos). |
Maybe they don't Photoshop them. I know quite a few who do. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:31 pm |
| DrJ wrote: |
Maybe they don't Photoshop them. I know quite a few who do. |
I agree. I have seen a lot of photoshopped photos from skincare lines.
Is that the type of results we should expect to see? Meaning, results that subtle? It almost seems like too much expense for the products if that is all we can hope for? Maybe expectations are too high for these products. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:40 pm |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Maybe they don't Photoshop them. I know quite a few who do. |
I agree. I have seen a lot of photoshopped photos from skincare lines.
Is that the type of results we should expect to see? Meaning, results that subtle? It almost seems like too much expense for the products if that is all we can hope for? Maybe expectations are too high for these products. |
Unless they help prevent future damage too. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:33 pm |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Maybe they don't Photoshop them. I know quite a few who do. |
I agree. I have seen a lot of photoshopped photos from skincare lines.
Is that the type of results we should expect to see? Meaning, results that subtle? It almost seems like too much expense for the products if that is all we can hope for? Maybe expectations are too high for these products. |
Philosophical question. Subtle is in the eye of the beholder. I guess it depends on expectations, Are we paying for results, or "hope in a bottle". I have tried to measure expectations going into a clinical trial, to see what effects it has on subjective evaluations of results. I don't have definitive data, but I think there is an inverse association. If you go in with "realistic" expectations, you tend to find satisfying results. If you come in with expectations set by the hope industry, you have a pretty good chance of being disappointed.
Here is how I might explain it to a patient or subject: If you are expecting to see the same results as you would from plastic surgery you will probably be disappointed. If you expect the results to be better than any skin care regimen you have ever used before, then you will probably be satisfied.. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:11 pm |
This summary is a few years old now, but gives a short & fair overview of GF issues. The list of growth factors is small, they don't mention hundreds of other important cytokines. Note that some growth factors are pure stimulators (like EGF) and others are cell growth "regulators". You need a balance of these different classes to remain "physiologic" (like nature does it) and to avoid some of the concerns mentioned (potential to stimulate cancers). That way you get the benefits without the risks.
http://dermnetnz.org/treatments/growth-factor-creams.html
This review paper abstract says some of the same thing, it's pretty good, I wish I could show you the whole article (copyright issues). It's from the SkinMedica founder, so it's about fibroblast-derived, not stem cell derived, cytokines. It talks about "synergistic interaction of multiple growth factors". It's all in the mix, the recipe. This also stands in stark contrast to the problem of unopposed EGF (per what we taklked about in the "Bioeffect EGF" thread today).
J Drugs Dermatol. 2009 May;8(5 Suppl Skin Rejuenation):4-13.
Topically applied physiologically balanced growth factors: a new paradigm of skin rejuvenation.
Sundaram H, Mehta RC, Norine JA, Kircik L, Cook-Bolden FE, Atkin DH, Werschler PW, Fitzpatrick RE.
Source
Dermatology, Cosmetic & Laser Surgery, Rockville, MD, USA.
Abstract
Synergistic interaction of multiple growth factors (GF) in skin controls the processes that promote skin repair. GFs have been shown to affect different pathways of skin repair and rejuvenation with many GFs working in close cooperation with one another and with other endogenous agents. Intrinsic and extrinsic aging of skin reduces both the levels of natural GFs and the number and activity of fibroblasts. Supplementing skin's endogenous GFs may enhance natural repair processes and accelerate the reversal of damage caused by intrinsic and extrinsic skin aging. In spite of their large molecular weight, evidence suggests that a small fraction of topically applied GFs penetrating into superficial epidermis can elicit a fibroblast-mediated response in the dermis. GF mixture secreted by human fibroblasts grown in conditions resembling the physiological condition of dermis, and present at high concentrations in a stable formula is most likely to provide an ideal cosmeceutical product. This naturally balanced mixture is also likely to contain other important, but as yet unidentified, substances that affect skin healing. Such a complex mixture cannot be reproduced using synthetic substances. Clinical studies have shown that topical application of products containing high concentrations of a physiologically balanced mixture of GF appears to reverse the signs of skin aging. A synergistic combination of antioxidants, matrix building agents and skin conditioners with physiologically balanced GF provides a novel and comprehensive paradigm of skin rejuvenation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:50 am |
| I'm glad to see realistic photos. But looking at them I notice there seems to be something weird going on with the subjects' eyebrows (and the hairline of the first, male subject). |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:30 am |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| Maybe expectations are too high for these products. |
Expectations have been altered by the mass media false promise of the 2 weeks to wrinkle free.
The Fountain of Youth in a cheap plastic bottle does not exist. Never did.
It still doesn't.
That's the bad news, and it's reality. Like it or not.
Good news:
Can you improve the cosmetic appearance of one's skin? Yes.
Can fine lines be reversed? Yes.
Can solar lentigos be faded/ removed? Yes.
Won't happen in 2 weeks or two months, and it won't happen with one "magic bullet" ingredient either.
| Quote: |
| In an early clinical study with a product containing a fibroblast-derived physiologically balanced GF mixture (TNS Recovery Complex, SkinMedica), (14) patients with Fitzpatrick Class II or greater facial photodamage applied the product twice daily for 60 days.The results demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in fine lines and wrinkles and reduction in periorbital photodamage by clinical grading and by optical profilometry. Measurements of Grenz-zone collagen and epidermal thickness in a 3-mm punch biopsy of the lateral cheek showed a 37% increase in Grenz-zone collagen and a 30% increase in epidermal thickness. (29) It is difficult to conduct vehicle-controlled studies on cosmeceutical products, as emollient topical vehicles cannot truly be classified as "inactive" However, if a product under study contains any new active ingredients, it is imperative that the study includes a reasonably matched vehicle to scientifically validate the effects of the new active ingredient. (54) |
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-10946162/Topically-applied-physiologically-balanced-growth.html
Caveat emptor.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21119440
Cell-based cytokine therapy for skin rejuvenation.
..there remain a few bugz in the pie of GF / cytokine mixes for cosmecuetical use...however none of those bugz are anywhere near as loathsome as the bogus claims of Teprenone and EGF.
Slapping EGF on one's visage is not only problematic...it's quite a foolish thing to do. The risks outweigh the rewards and the point of diminishing returns speeds up the older the individual is. |
_________________
If you make, first do no harm, your Law, you will never strike the first blow and will be known as a man of peace who can fight like ten tigers, a Human in the act of Being. There is no greater rank than this. Ashida Kim on War.~Cellese~AnteAge Serum and Accelerator, DermaRoller ,MyFawnie AA2G serum, KNN G ForceUltrasound., SEA, ChrySun 25% ZnO |
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:54 am |
| DragoN wrote: |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| Maybe expectations are too high for these products. |
Expectations have been altered by the mass media false promise of the 2 weeks to wrinkle free.
The Fountain of Youth in a cheap plastic bottle does not exist. Never did.
It still doesn't.
That's the bad news, and it's reality. Like it or not.
Good news:
Can you improve the cosmetic appearance of one's skin? Yes.
Can fine lines be reversed? Yes.
Can solar lentigos be faded/ removed? Yes.
Won't happen in 2 weeks or two months, and it won't happen with one "magic bullet" ingredient either.
there remain a few bugz in the pie of GF / cytokine mixes for cosmecuetical use...however none of those bugz are anywhere near as loathsome as the bogus claims of Teprenone and EGF.
|
Yes, I agree that you can improve the appearance of your skin with good products and that there is not 1 magic ingredient. (Nu Derm worked for me. Got rid of fine lines, hyperpigmentation, and even helped with the lip lines.) I mentioned Nu Derm because I have tried a ton of products since that line, and nothing has come close to giving me the improvment in my skin that Nu Derm did. I just cannot stay on it due to HQ and my liver enzymes. So, if I am going to spend a couple hundred bucks on a product, I want those results that I had with Nu Derm replicated - again, have yet to find anything that comes close for me personally.
Dragon, what bugs do you think exist in the cosmeceuticals with the GF/cytokines mix? |
|
|
|
|
| Wed Aug 13, 2025 7:26 am |
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. |
|
 |
|
|
