 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
 |
Sat May 01, 2010 11:26 pm  |
| The link I provided was not to prove anything about collagen, but about DNA damage. I purposely have not sited studies to prove my point because any studies that Josee does not like she simply runs down, with very little evidence to support her claims about them. The problem with that is that several of the studies you provided on page ten Josee, were paid for by Pharmaceutical companies trying to sell new drugs, or that actually supported Star Model's claims, or at other points in the discussion were actually the kinds of studies you had problems with at the beginning of this thread. And while your opinion on DNA damage is interesting, it is still only an opinion. Several prominent and up-to-date researchers and actual scientists would disagree with your theory. But I am sure they are all just charlatans and tricksters. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 1:11 am |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| its_kristy wrote: |
| Not to take this off topic but how is isotretinoin (which you mentioned earlier was contraindicated with peels) different than tretinoin. I'm on obagi now and once on maintenance, want to do some peels. I will still be using the tretinoin during maintenance. |
Kristy, isotretinoin is also known as Accutane and is oral. |
Isotretinoin (accutane) is usually prescribed to an individual by their dermatologist for cystic acne that has not responded to other traditional treatments i.e. topicals/antibiotics
It is an oral medication monitored by one's physician. |
_________________
50 Is definitely NOT nifty!! |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 3:46 am |
| alexes wrote: |
The link I provided was not to prove anything about collagen, but about DNA damage. I purposely have not sited studies to prove my point because any studies that Josee does not like she simply runs down, with very little evidence to support her claims about them. The problem with that is that several of the studies you provided on page ten Josee, were paid for by Pharmaceutical companies trying to sell new drugs, or that actually supported Star Model's claims, or at other points in the discussion were actually the kinds of studies you had problems with at the beginning of this thread. And while your opinion on DNA damage is interesting, it is still only an opinion. Several prominent and up-to-date researchers and actual scientists would disagree with your theory. But I am sure they are all just
charlatans and tricksters. |
Several things:
a. None of those 20 studies I cited were fully funded by any pharmaceutical company. Now if I'm wrong please tell me which studies were fully funded by a company.
b. None of the studies I cited supported Star Model's claim. Again, if you find a mistake (which I obviously can make) then please tell me which paper does that.
c. Please tell me which studies I have run down with very little evidence to support my claim.
d. In addition, if you read on a previous post of mine, I said that there are levels of evidence and while something fully funded by a pharmaceutical company is not the best (at all) at least the fact that it goes through peer-review (i.e. is published) is reassuring. There are several of the CPs papers that I discussed and actually thought were interesting that were funded by Procyte. However, I did not make much of it because they were published. That's different from the Neutrogena trial which are unfunded, the company refuses to give the clinical data (which they usually do if the research is serious) and reported in a funny and "creative" way. And even for those 20 papers I said in that same post that the point was not to prove anything but merely to show how anyone can quote medical literature creatively to make their point.
e. I never said anything against DNA damage or questioned the existence of DNA damage as part of photoaging or as part of the aging process in general. What I questioned is the theory that somehow "extra large collagen aggregates" are responsible for wrinkles and photoaging. And there are no studies to cite because that's just not how it works. There are things in which there are different opinions in the medical literature (e.g. Copper and Alzheimer's), and there are things in which there aren't. In this case, the fact that it is collagen degradation that contributes to wrinkles and not "extra large collagen aggregates" is standard current medical knowledge. |
_________________
37, light brown hair, green eyes, very fair skin. Oily T zone, broken capillaries... Current regime: Tretinoin 0.05% every night, hydroquinone 4% twice per day, lachydran every other day, random moisturizers and sunscreen |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 6:35 am |
| alexes wrote: |
Josee
I repeat - while wrinkles are caused by a loss of collagen, the collagen that remains is damaged. This is usually due to DNA damage from the sun
http://www.telemedicine.org/sundam/sundam2.4.1.html
I did not say wrinkles were not caused by loss of collagen, but that the extra large collagen particle is shared between wrinkles and scars. Please read my posts properly before you decided to respond. Other wise this whole discussion makes about as much sense as taking dermatological advise from a gynecologist. |
I knew what you meant Alexes.
SRCP's are just that - remodeling agents that rebuild damaged skin, whether it is from scars (bad collagen), sun damage (hyperpigmentation) or wrinkles caused from photo-aging DNA damage. You would have a hard time convincing those with acne scars who are remodeling their skin, that CPs aren't effective in building new collagen.
And if someone is unsure about the safety & effectiveness of copper peptides then it is hard to understand how they could support the use of Hydroquinone which has been banned in cosmetics for a variety of reasons.
http://www.skinmed.co.uk/pharmacynews/pigmentationreducing.html
Pigmentation reducing creams - the cure worse than the cause
| Quote: |
Therapists should be alarmed to read about recent research relating to hydroquinone causing cancer. Although hydroquinone creams are banned for use in cosmetics you may be still be giving hydroquinone to your clients without being aware. Recent evidence on the long term damage of hydroquinone has made this a critical issue for therapists to assess management of client's pigmentation issues.
Hydroquinone has been used for many years to reduce pigmentation by acting on melanin producing cells. This action can destroy the pigment making cells (melanocytes) and alter the structure of melanosomes (packets of pigment which are made by the melanocytes and passed to new skin cells as they are formed).
Hydroquinone was banned in January 2001 in cosmetics because of the potential damage it can do to the skin in terms of irritating the skin and creating white areas where no pigment can be made or in some cases turning the skin black. It is still prescribed by dermatologists in hospital but they are gradually switching to alternatives as new safety data comes to light. Recent studies have shown the potential of hydroquinone to cause cancer.
Significant importation of hydroquinone creams still occurs from countries where it is yet to be banned and a strong black market trade exists in the UK. This is bad enough but more concerning is that companies can still sell products containing arbutin and bearberry legally. Arbutin is the glycopyranoside of hydroquinone. This mouthful means that when this molecule is in the skin it breaks down and releases hydroquinone. Bearberry is a natural source of arbutin. So in fact many people are still effectively getting hydroquinone albeit by a different method. This issue of substitute sources of hydroquinone has been raised with the EEC but they have yet to respond; although they have classified hydroquinone as a potential cancer agent.
Hydroquinone has been shown to cause blood cancers such as leukaemia and kidney damage in animal studies. When applied to the skin it is absorbed into the blood stream and excreted via the kidneys but at a slower rate. This tells us that hydroquinone accumulates in the body. It is broken down in the bone marrow to p-benzoquinone and this is where long term damage may originate.
Hydroquinone creams are routinely used for four to six weeks minimum and many people use it for social lightening of a dark complexion over many years. There is strong evidence now that safer alternatives should be used which are as effective in many cases but without the long term risks.
This information has been brought to light by a recent review by Dr W Westerhof and T J Kooyers of the Netherlands Institute for Pigment Disorders and the Department of
Dermatology at the University on the health risks of hydroquinone and its analogues. They are pleading with the authorities to ban all sources of hydroquinone immediately |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 6:44 am |
Josee,
Maybe you can shed some light on this since you seem to have a solid scientific background. Or perhaps Star Model can enlighten me since she seems to be privy to the inner-workings of the Skin Biology company & has personal contact with Dr. Pickart. I was trying to do some research on the new Skin Signals Solution to see how it works. I went to the SkinBio forum & another member posted a question to Dr. P asking him how the Skin Signals worked. This is a quote of his reply:
"Skin Signals is an experiment. It is like our other serums but it also has enzymatic digests of collagen and elastin. There is some evidence that the breakdown products of these proteins signal the skin to produce more collagen and elastin."
Does it seem disturbing to anyone else that he would manufacture & sell a product that is still experimental? It would seem to me that he should do his own testing on people who realize that they are volunteering for in vivo research instead of charging customers $50 to unknowingly be a guinea pig for his "experiment".
His reply was posted on May 1, 2010. So as of yesterday he was unable to answer questions as to how (or if) this new product works because it is experimental. Any thoughts on this? I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here, just trying to understand the "science" behind this new, experimental product.
Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 9:50 am |
| doodlebug wrote: |
Josee,
Maybe you can shed some light on this since you seem to have a solid scientific background. Or perhaps Star Model can enlighten me since she seems to be privy to the inner-workings of the Skin Biology company & has personal contact with Dr. Pickart. I was trying to do some research on the new Skin Signals Solution to see how it works. I went to the SkinBio forum & another member posted a question to Dr. P asking him how the Skin Signals worked. This is a quote of his reply:
"Skin Signals is an experiment. It is like our other serums but it also has enzymatic digests of collagen and elastin. There is some evidence that the breakdown products of these proteins signal the skin to produce more collagen and elastin."
Does it seem disturbing to anyone else that he would manufacture & sell a product that is still experimental? It would seem to me that he should do his own testing on people who realize that they are volunteering for in vivo research instead of charging customers $50 to unknowingly be a guinea pig for his "experiment".
His reply was posted on May 1, 2010. So as of yesterday he was unable to answer questions as to how (or if) this new product works because it is experimental. Any thoughts on this? I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here, just trying to understand the "science" behind this new, experimental product.
Thanks! |
To be honest... I don't find it disturbing (this assuming that what is meant by "experimental" is that the product is proven safe but we don't know if it's effective or not).
So... for e.g. someone has a theory. I'm going to make up my own theory now. So... in vivo, when collagen degrades, the broken down collagen sends "signals" to the cells to make more collagen. Thus if I make a cream with these peptides then maybe the skin will produce more collagen.
It sounds reasonable. I don't think the "signal" would be too strong because in real life outside of wound settings when our collagen degrades then we don't produce more collagen to restore that (hence wrinkles). But... a weak signal is better than no signal!
So this can be my theory, which seems reasonable but can either be true or false. Maybe collagen particles don't stimulate anything. Maybe these collagen particles are too big to go through the SC. Even if they do go through the SC chances are they might not reach the dermis.
But I still want to try it and sell it and so I tell my clients that there isn't much evidence on this but I think it can work.
At least I'm upfront with my clients and they can decide whether they want to spend those $50 or not.
Again, this assuming that all tests for safety were done, that copper doesn't bind to the peptides and does some other strange activity, etc, etc. |
_________________
37, light brown hair, green eyes, very fair skin. Oily T zone, broken capillaries... Current regime: Tretinoin 0.05% every night, hydroquinone 4% twice per day, lachydran every other day, random moisturizers and sunscreen |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 10:10 am |
| doodlebug wrote: |
Do you know if there are any peer-reviewed studies published on Skin Signals Solution? I'm guessing they're not if it's just in the experimental stages right now. But maybe I'm wrong? I hope so!  |
There is not one single published study on Skin signals (or just the second generation copper peptides) and wrinkles, photodamage or collagen production. |
_________________
37, light brown hair, green eyes, very fair skin. Oily T zone, broken capillaries... Current regime: Tretinoin 0.05% every night, hydroquinone 4% twice per day, lachydran every other day, random moisturizers and sunscreen |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 12:48 pm |
| Does anyone know if there is any CP product registered as a drug with the FDA? |
_________________
37, light brown hair, green eyes, very fair skin. Oily T zone, broken capillaries... Current regime: Tretinoin 0.05% every night, hydroquinone 4% twice per day, lachydran every other day, random moisturizers and sunscreen |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 1:01 pm |
| Josee wrote: |
| Does anyone know if there is any CP product registered as a drug with the FDA? |
I won't swear the answer is no but if there were they should hopefully been posted on this thread. 
http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?tid=37435
Dr. Pickart on GHK and Cancer |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 1:10 pm |
I don't think that GHK-Cu is considered a drug since it is a recognized cosmetic ingredient (copper tripeptide-1). The second generation or hydrolyzed soy protein + copper chloride is not a drug (that I could find) and it also is not a recognized cosmetic ingredient. It is a combination of 2 seperate ingredients (soy protein AND copper chloride). I checked several different online INCI dictionaries & the FDA website. It is not considered it's own ingredient, but a combination of 2 different ingredients. HTH!
| Josee wrote: |
| Does anyone know if there is any CP product registered as a drug with the FDA? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 1:34 pm |
| doodlebug wrote: |
I don't think that GHK-Cu is considered a drug since it is a recognized cosmetic ingredient (copper tripeptide-1). The second generation or hydrolyzed soy protein + copper chloride is not a drug (that I could find) and it also is not a recognized cosmetic ingredient. It is a combination of 2 seperate ingredients (soy protein AND copper chloride). I checked several different online INCI dictionaries & the FDA website. It is not considered it's own ingredient, but a combination of 2 different ingredients. HTH!
|
Mmmm....
FDA definition of a drug: "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease"
"You can treat painful rashes like those from poison oak, poison ivy rash or nickel with BioHeal.... Copper-peptides in BioHeal are safer and better for skin than cortisone cream which can inflame the skin. "
"Help heal psoriasis with BioHeal: An effective treatment for psoriasis"
"Get relief from contact dermatitis and itchy inflamed skin with BioHeal. You can treat eczema and fix psoriasis which are forms of dermatitis. BioHeal can help heal allergic dermatitis by protecting the skin."
"Eliminate facial moles in the privacy of your home.Strong Copper-Peptides and hydroxy acids can flatten and remove unsightly moles" (note: DO NOT eliminate moles at home. Moles are considered benign neoplasias and they need to be assessed. A doctor needs to see it and assess whether the nature of the mole warrants a biopsy or not. Most of the times it will be sent to biopsy.)
"Naturally reduce active acne and pitted acne scars by combining hydroxy acids (to break up scar tissue and exfoliate the skin) with copper-peptides (to repair damage and strengthen your skin's ability to fight blemishes). "
"BioHeal enhances skin repair and healing of skin rashes, sores and chronic irritation."
|
_________________
37, light brown hair, green eyes, very fair skin. Oily T zone, broken capillaries... Current regime: Tretinoin 0.05% every night, hydroquinone 4% twice per day, lachydran every other day, random moisturizers and sunscreen |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 1:48 pm |
| doodlebug wrote: |
Wow Bethany! I never really thought of it like that! Geeze, when you list all of those facts together like that it makes me even more uncomfortable.  But you're not making anything up - you're just pointing out the obvious! I guess sometimes in our quest to turn back the hands of time (or "Reverse Skin Aging") it's easy to overlook the facts and not listen to common sense. Thanks for the reality check!  |
No problem...it was rather enlighting when I looked at the bigger picture myself. And while this thread has been controversial, I personally have learned a TON.
Unfortunately, I have no doubt that many feathers will be ruffled and tempers will flair at my comments above. But that is certainly NOT my intent. I believe people DO see results from CPs, but I don't believe that they are really considering all the factors that come into play...I have the same thoughts about results on pretty much all actives/products/tools. It takes sooo long for results to REALLY show up (ex: dermarolling 4-6 months minimum), and something you used in the past may actually have caused the results you see now. 
And how many people have taken the time to go and do the testing that THEY can do (like VISIA) to see if products really work....VERY few! Or even taking pics and sharing them here on EDS (with identifying info cropped out)....again, VERY few. Instead, we rely on feedback and raves from people that we REALLY don't even know thanks to the anonimity that the web provides.
At the end of the day, to quote Josee "Knowledge is Power." But for many, Ignorance is Bliss...that's ok too, as long as people realize that they are running around blindfolded. I personally want REAL results, and want them sooner rather than later. So I am trying to stick to products that at least TRY and prove that they are capable of delivering the results I want (though I deviated temporarily with the Wonderbar, until I slapped myself and jumped off that wagon, lol). But I just don't see SB as even trying any more....they are resting on some very dated, unrelated laurels, even though they have multiple scientists in the immediate family.
But as long as members are AWARE of all that BEFORE they buy the SB products, all is good. Life is certainly about choices, and to each his own! |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 2:49 pm |
Hi Josee,
No, I was not disagreeing with you - the statements made by Skin Biology definitely seem to be drug claims - I was meaning that as of now copper peptides (GHK-Cu) are not classified as a drug. To do so I believe that SkinBio would have to do drug testing & submit it to the FDA for approval. Correct? But the claims of treating & healing certainly sound like drug claims to me, but again, I'm not an expert...
| Josee wrote: |
| doodlebug wrote: |
I don't think that GHK-Cu is considered a drug since it is a recognized cosmetic ingredient (copper tripeptide-1). The second generation or hydrolyzed soy protein + copper chloride is not a drug (that I could find) and it also is not a recognized cosmetic ingredient. It is a combination of 2 seperate ingredients (soy protein AND copper chloride). I checked several different online INCI dictionaries & the FDA website. It is not considered it's own ingredient, but a combination of 2 different ingredients. HTH!
|
Mmmm....
FDA definition of a drug: "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease"
"You can treat painful rashes like those from poison oak, poison ivy rash or nickel with BioHeal.... Copper-peptides in BioHeal are safer and better for skin than cortisone cream which can inflame the skin. "
"Help heal psoriasis with BioHeal: An effective treatment for psoriasis"
"Get relief from contact dermatitis and itchy inflamed skin with BioHeal. You can treat eczema and fix psoriasis which are forms of dermatitis. BioHeal can help heal allergic dermatitis by protecting the skin."
"Eliminate facial moles in the privacy of your home.Strong Copper-Peptides and hydroxy acids can flatten and remove unsightly moles" (note: DO NOT eliminate moles at home. Moles are considered benign neoplasias and they need to be assessed. A doctor needs to see it and assess whether the nature of the mole warrants a biopsy or not. Most of the times it will be sent to biopsy.)
"Naturally reduce active acne and pitted acne scars by combining hydroxy acids (to break up scar tissue and exfoliate the skin) with copper-peptides (to repair damage and strengthen your skin's ability to fight blemishes). "
"BioHeal enhances skin repair and healing of skin rashes, sores and chronic irritation."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 4:30 pm |
| bethany wrote: |
But instead, based on the content of this thread we can see that the entire marketing philosophy on the 2nd gen CP products is based on 1) studies on a DIFFERENT PRODUCT (1st gen peptides), 2) usage for a DIFFERENT PURPOSE (wound healing, not anti-aging), and 3) people who insist that CPs produce fabulous results even though they are ALSO using Vit C, acids, Retin A, needling, etc.
 |
I think the 3rd point is important. It is difficult (if not impossible) to be sure that the fabulous results are not due to other actives since they are using MULTIPLE actives and also including dermarolling, needling, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 4:58 pm |
| m1rox wrote: |
| bethany wrote: |
But instead, based on the content of this thread we can see that the entire marketing philosophy on the 2nd gen CP products is based on 1) studies on a DIFFERENT PRODUCT (1st gen peptides), 2) usage for a DIFFERENT PURPOSE (wound healing, not anti-aging), and 3) people who insist that CPs produce fabulous results even though they are ALSO using Vit C, acids, Retin A, needling, etc.
|
I think the 3rd point is important. It is difficult (if not impossible) to be sure that the fabulous results are not due to other actives since they are using MULTIPLE actives and also including dermarolling, needling, etc. |
I definitely agree with this. Even if they aren't using AHA's, they are usually using some other "active" or skin tool along with the CP's. (Though this can usually be said for other products, as well, and not just CP's.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 5:15 pm |
| Josee wrote: |
| doodlebug wrote: |
Hi Josee,
No, I was not disagreeing with you - the statements made by Skin Biology definitely seem to be drug claims - I was meaning that as of now copper peptides (GHK-Cu) are not classified as a drug. To do so I believe that SkinBio would have to do drug testing & submit it to the FDA for approval. Correct? But the claims of treating & healing certainly sound like drug claims to me, but again, I'm not an expert... |
Oh no I know. I was just a little that they were not drugs and still have drug claims |
This bothers me a great deal as well, we saw it with the Catalyst and also CP's. The thread I linked to has some additional drug type claims for CP's, that if true should put CP's under FDA supervision. |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 5:20 pm |
| m1rox wrote: |
I think the 3rd point is important. It is difficult (if not impossible) to be sure that the fabulous results are not due to other actives since they are using MULTIPLE actives and also including dermarolling, needling, etc. |
Let's not forget Botox, Fillers ect. ect. aside from the multiple actives for a few at least. |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 8:59 pm |
all so fascinating...
have you guys seen this thread?
http://www.smartskincare.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=859&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
Dr. Pickart's responses to other biochemists who work in skincare's questions about his research are really egregious: instead of clarifying his positions, he always says he will await that chemist's publication of a paper in a peer reviewed journal on srcp, which is own area of research... 
--avalange |
_________________
http://newnaturalbeauty.tumblr.com/ 37, light-toned olive skin, broken caps, normal skin. My staples: Osea cleansing milk, Algae Oil, Advanced Protection Cream, Eyes & Lips, Tata Harper, Julie Hewett makeup, Amazing Cosmetics Powder, & By Terry Light Expert, Burnout, and daily inversion therapy and green smoothies! |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 9:09 pm |
| avalange wrote: |
all so fascinating...
have you guys seen this thread?
http://www.smartskincare.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=859&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
Dr. Pickart's responses to other biochemists who work in skincare's questions about his research are really egregious: instead of clarifying his positions, he always says he will await that chemist's publication of a paper in a peer reviewed journal on srcp, which is own area of research...
--avalange |
Well, I think it's fair to say that at least the portion of the world represented by EDS also awaits Pickart's articles, lol.
So exactly how much does it cost to do a little pilot study like the 5 person one they did for Lumixyl?
Josee - do you have any connections that could do a study on CPs for anti-aging? |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 9:16 pm |
| I think that unless one has adequate funds and resources (eg the commercial companies), it is difficult to conduct a good trial. 5 people would be too small a sample size. You need to follow-up a large group of people and compare with matched controls who do not use the product. The copper peptides are not a "drug" so it would be difficult to justify activating the machinery to conduct such a trial. Unless Dr. Pickart would pick up the towel and do so to substantiate his claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 10:44 pm |
| avalange wrote: |
Well, another point is that Dr. Pickart's rsearch was funded by large companies at one point (Neutrogena, others?), and they decided to cease production on many of the products that used his research. Since then, he seems to have been content to resist conducting new research, and embrace the tactic of experimenting on his customers' skin. Is a larger company's lack of endorsement of cps not a kind of indictment of them as a viable anti-aging ingredient?
in other words, are there any other skincare companies that are embracing and using cp technology?
i mean, Yarosh's entire line was bought by Estee Lauder, and they seem to have a partnership not based solely on some r&d... I think it's important to take into account the politics of corporate funding of research and marketing as well. when we do, it throws light on Dr. Pickart as a kind of outsider whose ideas about skin and aging have not been consistently embraced by the corporate skincare community at large...
--avalange
| m1rox wrote: |
| I think that unless one has adequate funds and resources (eg the commercial companies), it is difficult to conduct a good trial. 5 people would be too small a sample size. You need to follow-up a large group of people and compare with matched controls who do not use the product. The copper peptides are not a "drug" so it would be difficult to justify activating the machinery to conduct such a trial. Unless Dr. Pickart would pick up the towel and do so to substantiate his claims. |
|
Neutrogena have stopped producing the Visibly Firm serum. Unfortunately I read on another forum of people reporting that their skin condition got worse on this product. Neutrogena still seem to have a few other products from the Visibly Firm line being sold (I saw them onwww.drugstore.com). Perhaps they have the 1st gen copper peptides in lower concentration and therefore less likely to cause side effects.
Neova and a few other smaller companies are using 1st generation copper peptides (eg PSF - pure skin formulations).
Dr. Pickart needs to publish his studies in peer-reviewed journals. Then at least there would be independent referees to look into the studies. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 10:46 pm |
| bethany wrote: |
| Editing to add: Has anyone considered that maybe he HAS already done studies, but didn't get the results he had hoped for? That's actually the perfect reason to avoid doing any future ones! |
Well he can't rest on his laurels for ever based on the research from the 1st generation CPs. He is getting on in years though. As long as there are still people who believe (some with quasi-religious fervour), he can probably continue to receive enough income from Skinbiology to last him the rest of his life. He probably doesn't have much motivation to conduct any more research. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun May 02, 2010 11:33 pm |
| m1rox wrote: |
| Neutrogena have stopped producing the Visibly Firm serum. Unfortunately I read on another forum of people reporting that their skin condition got worse on this product. Neutrogena still seem to have a few other products from the Visibly Firm line being sold (I saw them onwww.drugstore.com). Perhaps they have the 1st gen copper peptides in lower concentration and therefore less likely to cause side effects. |
The serum did have the highest level of CPs within the Visibly Firm line...I used it for a couple of months myself. |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Mon May 03, 2010 1:15 am |
| bethany wrote: |
| Granted, this summary of mine will probably result in me being labeled as "Troll Bethany," and a recommendation will be made that I lead a miserable life and should seek psychotherapy. But the more I learn about this whole situation, the happier I am that I personally stopped using CPs. |
Well I certainly won't be labelling you a "Troll" - I love these types of discussions and am willing to take on board ALL opinions (even though I'm a CP user).
I really think the anti-CP lobby have made some very viable points. However, if I'm going to stop using CPs - what else should I turn to? As I've said in the past, I'm very skeptical about all of the claims made by the cosmetic companies. Realistically, is there any COSMETIC that is going to make a visible difference to wrinkles and sagging? (and I'm not talking about adding moisture). It is my understanding that Retin-A is still considered the Gold Standard when it comes to anti-ageing creams (but, of course, Retin-A is a drug) so that eliminates it from my question.
I noticed that Dr Toderov recommended using DMAE instead of CPs. Well, I can't believe how much scary information I've read about DMAE (which I also use!). So, please - can anyone point me in the direction of an anti-aging cream that has undergone the appropriate scientific studies, that is considered completely safe, and that actually works? I have a feeling that the answer is no. What works for one person doesn't work for another. That's why all of us waste way too much time on Forums like this one trying to find some miracle. And the more I participate on these Forums, the more I'm convinced that any perceived improvement or damage is (for the most part) psychosomatic - the Placebo Effect has allot to answer for IMHO.
Aging is aging - our skin starts to deteriorate from the age of 25. I don't happen to believe that any lotion or potion is going to make much difference - especially when one half of us smoke and eat crap! And, just one other thought whilst I'm spewing out all this negativity - where are all the over 60s on this Forum (yes, I can see your hand up JasmineRosey) but I've noticed that many members seem to disappear into the ether once they turn 60. I'm not sure whether they've given up the good fight or whether they've all just developed Alzheimer's from using too much CP and are forgetting to post!!! |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Mon May 03, 2010 3:05 am |
Well said Keliu.
I've been following this thread with great interest. Josee, thanks so much for all of your research. It seems clear to me that CP (esp 2nd generation) have *not* undergone an adequate scientific review process that validates Pickart's claims regarding the efficacy of CP's. Which is, as noted previously, quite ironic given that his marketing ploy is based on how his CP products have been scientifically proven to work in controlled studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, etc.
That said...
I still really like the Skin Signals product, which I've been using for about over a month now. I've noticed a positive change in my skin, a smoother texture, smaller pores. A week ago I used a .5mm dermaroller & put the Skin Signals on afterwards on my stubborn hyperpigmented spots, and the next morning, the spots did seem lighter.
I would be the first to step forward and say that there are probably a whole bunch of factors at work here that affects the condition of my skin-- I do use retin-A, exfoliate with AHA's, watch my diet, take supplements, etc. However, it has only been since I've introduced the CP's into my regime that I've noticed a difference in my skin.
The only other thing I could attribute the change to is a delayed results from the 6 1.5mm dermarolling sessions I did from last year, spaced about a month apart each. However, the last session I did was in January of this year. Perhaps the changes I'm seeing are a result of the 1.5mm dermarolling, but I'm more inclined to attribute it to the CP's, since there was such a marked change in my spots since using it. I've used the .5mm dermaroller before without rolling in anything and did not notice any change.
The thing about the scientific method, it seems to me, is that while it is a useful tool, is inherently limited in that it *cannot* measure everything-- as there are limited resources as well as entities yet to be discovered. Until the scientific method gets around to testing the efficacy of copper peptides (or the claims of any other cosmetic product for that matter), anecdotal evidence can be pretty useful. However, this of course must be weighed against one's appetite for risk-- given that there is no real evidence that CP's work, and may even *cause* damage, are you willing to give them a try anyway? Well, I am, I suppose. I like them (and hope I'm not doing any long-term damage to my skin!)
 |
_________________
40 yrs old; Tanaka massage 1x/ day; HF device; retin-a .05%; FE & Carolyn's Facial Fitness every other day; green smoothies; MSM 4000mg/day; NAC 1000mg/day; ALA; Ageless Secret/ Gold combo; FIM lamp; History of Whoo skincare; homemade niacinamide toner |
|
|
|
| Thu Apr 18, 2024 6:55 pm |
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. |
|
 |
|
|
