|
|
Author |
Message |
|
|
Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:32 pm |
If you read the post about trepenone by NCN, you will see that the argument is not 'it is not absorbed' but 'the amounts are very different from the use as a drug, so that there are no systemic effects'.
I understand that you don't like trepenone, but it would be nice to stick to real arguments and not misquote or misinterpret. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:34 pm |
Lotusesther wrote: |
If you read the post about trepenone by NCN, you will see that the argument is not 'it is not absorbed' but 'the amounts are very different from the use as a drug, so that there are no systemic effects'.
I understand that you don't like trepenone, but it would be nice to stick to real arguments and not misquote or misinterpret. |
Teprenone is prescribed for oral absorption; 3 capsules of 50mg a day, i.e. 150mg.
RENOVAGE contains 2% of Teprenone; if used at 2% in a cream, that makes 0.04% Teprenone in the cream, i.e. 400mg/kg of product, thus 400 micrograms per gram, or 400 nanograms/mg. Normal usage on the skin is, say, 2mg of cream/cm2 , thus 800 nanograms per cm2; if you use it on your entire face, say, 200cm2, you would apply 160 micrograms; twice a day: 320 micrograms. Even assuming 100% of this amount penetrates into the skin (highly unlikely); you would absorb 500 times less Teprenone than with a daily oral use.
Conclusion: the very low amount of Teprenone in the cream removes it very far from any claim of being a drug, of presenting systemic effects or risks.
These are real arguments. You don't seem to grasp that oral products are systemically distributed. That means they reach the skin as well. There are abundant blood vessels in the dermis. using the absorption numbers and doses given, it is easy to calculate the amount that facial skin would be exposed to. It is far more than the amount in the cream, per those numbers. That's the point. So why wouldn't you get the same (indeed much better) cutaneous anti-aging effects with oral administration? That's logical. Instead, all we see reported are skin side effects like toxic epidermal necrosis. Safety issues. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:54 pm |
Dr J., that all depends, your reasoning, on whether or not the drug gets through the digestive tract unchanged or not. I don't have any data on that, but as we who have looked into things like hrt all know, in first passage things may change and become something not quite the same as the original substance. There is no data about that available in the articles presented.
So I guess it would be more reasonable to ask the people of Sederma about this. They after all have researched and tested the stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:23 am |
Lotusesther wrote: |
Dr J., that all depends, your reasoning, on whether or not the drug gets through the digestive tract unchanged or not. I don't have any data on that, but as we who have looked into things like hrt all know, in first passage things may change and become something not quite the same as the original substance. There is no data about that available in the articles presented.
So I guess it would be more reasonable to ask the people of Sederma about this. They after all have researched and tested the stuff. |
First pass pharmacodynamics applied here would want to examine metabolites produced in the liver, some of which may be more, not less, toxic.
Ask Sederma? We got stonewalled.I guess because we are not formulating with it, we are not privy to the information...
Sederma has of course a full, toxicologist certified dossier on the skin and eye irritation, sensitization and mutagenicity profile of RENOVAGE for cosmetic usage that is available to any professional formulating person using the product. There is, however, no legal requirement to publish these safety (or efficacy) data.
Secret dossier? I wonder what it is they want to hide from the average consumer, or the average scientist? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:58 am |
Did you yourself bother to read these patents? Not a single one of them addresses Renovage. As is the habit of patent writers in the cosmetic realm, they merely mention every other ingredient in the known universe and say it can be combined with them all. Laundry list, boilerplate.
Is this is the best retort you can come up with to the actual science .... ? |
|
|
|
|
Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:22 am |
Quote: |
First pass pharmacodynamics applied here would want to examine metabolites produced in the liver, some of which may be more, not less, toxic. |
My point exactly. Side effects from internal use need not reflect on external (skin) use. Side effects can also be caused by underlying ailments (especially liver and kidney trouble) that have no bearing at all on use on the skin. So it's something Sederma will know more about, but we don't. Not even you. |
|
|
|
|
Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:23 am |
Protective effect of geranylgeranylacetone, an inducer of heat shock protein 70, against drug-induced lung injury/fibrosis in an animal model
From the supporting data of the rebuttal...
Quote: |
We confirmed the presence of inflammation and fibrosis in the BLM-induced lung injury model and induction of HSP70 by oral administration of GGA. |
Sederma via NCN
Quote: |
There is nothing to show that cells in contact with Teprenone increase HSP70 or release it into the extracellular environment, and there is no reason they should. |
That is in direct conflict with the above...so which is it? No release due to lack of clinically effective amounts?
Quote: |
Conclusion: the very low amount of Teprenone in the cream removes it very far from any claim of being a drug, of presenting systemic effects or risks. |
Right....because it is utterly useless at those concentrations. However, were it not being sold at a useless concentration you would be running into autoimmunity issues, which is another fascinating branch of cancer research...HSP 70 stars in that.
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Geranylgeranylacetone with Cimetidine in Gastritis Patients with Dyspeptic Symptoms and Gastric Lesions: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial in Japan
Sederma via NCN
Quote: |
As to the safety and legality of the product: Teprenone is not a drug in any country |
GGA, the patent was rejected in Europe 27/02/98 and 06/07/95. Patent # rejected T 913/94. In order to patent it , they had to change the claim and country. But as it had already failed the ulcer drug claims in Europe, it was repackaged as a skin care ingredient.
Quote: |
Sederma: Not likely? What is the basis of this statement? Above are a number of articles that indeed show the potential BENEFITS of HSP70 stimulation. But once again, Teprenone at the recommended use levels does not even induce HSP70 in skin cells! |
In short, Spin doctoring. In what they are not trying to say.
Quote: |
The company did not claim to prolong telomeres, nor did it claim to stimulate telomerase; it only demonstrated that genes related to telomere maintenance were activated by incubation of skin cells with low levels of Teprenone. |
Pure conjecture and unsubstantiated.
Claim substantiation February 2007
Protocol: Simple blind study including 24 women, 58±6 years old, with wrinkles and not having used anti-age products for at least 1 month. No intentional UV exposure. Twice daily application of a cream formulated with
3% Renovage™, for 6 months. Evaluation of the functional and structural signs of ageing at 1 and 6 months.
Skin moisture and epidermal integrity improved 30% +, nothing special. A decent moisturizer will do same. They were instructed against intentional UV exposure, and lo and behold, improvement in sunspots. 42-56%. Perhaps it's a little bit obvious or not?
The concluding arguments then go on to expound the benefits of Hsp70, which Sederma clearly stated Teprenone does not induce...Spin.
Cell Stress Chaperones. 2005 Autumn;10(3):197-203.
Ectoine from halophilic microorganisms induces the expression of hsp70 and hsp70B' in human keratinocytes modulating the proinflammatory response.
Further to which it goes unmentioned, there are several herbs used in Chinese Medicine which have been banned, due to their proven carcinogenic effect.
Finer hours of spin I have been witness to. |
_________________ 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 |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:17 pm |
NCN wrote: |
With the current attack on Renovage by Dr. J, I contacted Sederma. Below is their response to all of his/her accusations.
|
Interesting terms to start a debate.
NCN wrote: |
Dr. J – I would appreciate it if you would refrain from writing about products/ingredients that you are not personally familiar with and have not tested yourself.
|
Why do you assume I am unfamiliar. Heat shock proteins bear a lot in common with some classes of cytokines. Does one have to be a user of a product to look critically at the scientific basis of its claims?
NCN wrote: |
After reading the response from Sederma, if you need further clarification or have any questions, please contact Denise Gabriele at Sederma. |
Sorry NCN, it doesn't work that way. If Ms. Gabriele want to engage me in debate, she needs to contact me. Here or at BFT. I'm available. But frankly, I don't usually find it very helpful to debate marketing people about science. Why doesn't Sederma send one of their scientists here to debate? I've met one or two of them, and believe they are quote capable of honest debate on the facts. If Sederma lets them. Other companies who I have reviewed at BFT have had their science people call me, and sometimes the added information has helped clarify issues and I have had quite positive things to say as a result.
NCN wrote: |
Enjoy reading the “Bare Faced Truth” about Renovage! |
Thanks. Our readership is growing, and we get a lot of positive feedback.
NCN wrote: |
Teprenone stimulates HSP70 synthesis
true; ... There is NO evidence that Teprenone induces HSP in skin cells. |
More to the point, there is no evidence that it does not. Since heat shock proteins, just like cytokines, can be induced in virtually any cell, how can we reasonably assume that skin cells are unique? And since part of this debate has to do with toxicology, I would assume if this is the case that Sederma has done studies to prove that Teprenone does not induce HSP in skin cells. To have not done so would be to ignore the elephant in the room i.g.there are literally hundreds of citations in the medical and pharmacy literature documenting that Tepronone induces heat shock proteins in every tissue studied.
NCN wrote: |
Then he takes another article (from Experim. Dermatol.) that pretends to show that extracellular HSP70 is a "danger signal” and "may be related to skin diseases". |
Wow. pretends? I guess the author of the peper should be insulted - he is the one who uses the term. Here is the background section of the paper:
BACKGROUND: The stress-inducible chaperone heat shock protein (HSP) 70 is considered a 'danger signal' if released into the extracellular environment. It has been proposed to play a role in the pathogenesis of skin diseases such as psoriasis and lupus erythematosus (LE).
And here is the title: "Human keratinocytes release high levels of inducible heat shock protein 70 that enhances peptide uptake."
Which also refutes the argument that the role of HSP70 in skin has never been examined.
NCN wrote: |
...the Sederma brochure shows that Teprenone reduces HSP release in stressed cells, just like the good antioxidant it is. There is nothing to show that cells in contact with Teprenone increase HSP70 or release it into the extracellular environment, and there is no reason they should. |
Sorry, NCN, but Sederma is just outright wrong on this. You don't have to believe me. Just go to Pubmed (and put this into the search box: "Teprenone heat shock proteins". You will retrieve 110 citations, all about how Teprenone induces heat shock proteins. Here is a link that does just that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Teprenone%20heat%20shock%20proteins
NCN wrote: |
This whole argument falls totally flat.
|
Oh really? I think your whole argument just fell flat. Now anybody can go read the facts. PubMed is the place to find the truth!
NCN wrote: |
New Sederma data shows that Teprenone significantly reduces the telomere shortening in stressed and non-stressed replicating human skin cells, that is: Teprenone maintains telomere length. |
Published where? By whom? Or is this in that secret file that only products formulators can see?
NCN wrote: |
The nine month study on fibroblast senescence, detailed in the technical brochure on RENOVAGE demonstrates that fibroblasts in culture remain in replicative states longer (for three months!) when incubated with Teprenone, compared to control cells in identical conditions without Teprenone. |
It is incredible easy to coax fibroblasts to stay in a replicative state longer. All sorts of quick and simple things you can do, like vary the temperature, O2 concentration (slowing down cell cycling) or kill some of them off (they replicate more when there are fewer around - they like to fill space). So maybe Teprenone is killing some?
So maybe Teprenone is slowing or killing fibroblasts? That would explain the title of this paper: "Isoprenoid geranylgeranylacetone inhibits human colon cancer cells through induction of apoptosis and cell cycle arrest." Anticancer Drugs. 2010 Oct;21(9):850-60.
For you non-scientists, geranylgeranylacetone is the scientific name for Tepronone).
By the way, Tepronone may in fact be a good anti-cancer drug.
NCN wrote: |
Teprenone IS a good antioxidant which furthermore stimulates the genes of the cells to increase their own anti-oxidant response. |
So does vitamin C, and perhaps thousands of botanical extracts, all considerably cheaper. If the only anti-aging effect of Teprenone is as an antioxidant, then it is a weak effect.
We can continue this debate as time allows. We may want to do an update at BFT on Renovage/Terenone. Will be particularly prone to do so if we can engage Sederma scientists in a collegial debate. |
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:02 am |
The NCN / Sederma arguments to justify Renovage/Teprenone are really not worth pursuing any further, because they are so internally inconsistent. Blatantly so. As DragoN was first to point out, they first make the argument that Teprenone doesn’t increase HSP70, and that it instead decreases it. We provided more than 100 citations showing that it does. It is a well established FACT. After denying the impossible to deny, they promote the benefits of HSP70 stimulation, citing the same literature. I’m sorry folks, but you seem confused about your own drug, and you really can’t have it both ways.
You also try to attribute its beneficial effects to it being an antioxidant. Fine. Go do a study comparing it to coffee berry, or better yet yerba mate. Give me an OREC value
Let me go on record as saying that I am not against exploiting the heat shock protein pathways for therapeutic purposes. There are good potential applications. But if you truly understand the role of each HSP, then you need to know that skin is a unique organ. The chief biochemical role of HSP70 is to prevent apoptosis triggered by extremely stressful stimuli (e.g. hyperthermia/burns). It is a survival protein that works through it’s client proteins, many of which are cytokines. By inhibiting capsase activation, cells that other wise be marked for disposal are kept around. HSPs can determine whether a cell is to die or to differentiate. But keep in mind, this is the very core of tumorogenesis. To wit:
“The ability of HSPs to modulate the fate of the cells might have important repercussions in pathological situations such as cancer. Apoptosis, differentiation and oncogenesis are very related processes. Defaults in differentiation and/or apoptosis are involved in many cancer cells' aetiology. HSPs are abnormally constitutively high in most cancer cells and, in clinical tumors, they are associated with poor prognosis. In experimental models, HSP27 and HSP70 have been shown to increase cancer cells tumorigencity and their depletion can induce a spontaneous regression of the tumors.” Prion. 2007 Jan-Mar; 1(1): 53–60.
Remember my BFT argument? Suppose you have a subclinical (undetected) skin cancer (50% of everyone getting to age 65 will have at least one). Suppose you slather on a substance every day that induces HSP70. See the bolded statement above. Draw your own conclusions. |
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:36 pm |
I find a simple rule of thumb tends to work here:
Anyone selling a product now or in the near future has a stake in us believing their side to this debate. All "science arguments" in this thread are from individuals making money on their own products (now or in the very near future). So I would prefer input from science not debated by the "sellers", or anyone making a profit. |
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:43 pm |
Tiny wrote: |
I find a simple rule of thumb tends to work here:
Anyone selling a product now or in the near future has a stake in us believing their side to this debate. All "science arguments" in this thread are from individuals making money on their own products (now or in the very near future). So I would prefer input from science not debated by the "sellers", or anyone making a profit. |
EXACTLY!
I think one of the very strong points of a forum like this is not only the exchange of knowledge but the info from real users, in vivo real life experience. As soon as people start to have an interest in a product (either as producer or through advantages like free products etc.) a bias creeps in and info is no longer neutral. |
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:52 pm |
All I got from this thread was wrinkles, from frowning whilst trying to make sense of the information that may or may not have been here somewhere. Sighs. |
_________________ 50, happy reluma user started 16.6.12 original formula. PMD user. started LouLou's ageless regime. |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:28 pm |
Tiny wrote: |
I find a simple rule of thumb tends to work here:
Anyone selling a product now or in the near future has a stake in us believing their side to this debate. All "science arguments" in this thread are from individuals making money on their own products (now or in the very near future). So I would prefer input from science not debated by the "sellers", or anyone making a profit. |
Well, if you prefer input from elsewhere and others, why not just go elsewhere and talk to your trusted sources? Why did you feel the need to share this opinion (excuse me, rule) here. To tweak our scientific noses?
Everyone has biases. if there is not a profit motive there are plenty of other motives. This has been studied ad nauseum, not just in science but in journalism, politics, you name it. You cannot invalidate scientific opinion so easily, even though it is easy to imagine that you have a motive to do so. We don't know what it is yet, because we don't know you. But if we did, we would find some reason why you decided to post your opinion. We're glad you did, don't get me wrong. But to pretend you have no biases, or any of us, is just plain "head in the sand". Rather than get lost in the ":who has bias" arguments, why don't we just all admit our biases, and get on with the scientific debate. I'm not asking anyone to believe me because I'm me. I'm just a trained signpost pointing to 1. published literature, 2. common rules of logic. The evidence stands on its own - doesn't need me.
If you want to know all my biases, I discuss them on BFT regularly. BTW it might interest you to know that I wrote about the non-science of Renovage long before I ever had an idea for a product. Did doing some science, and wanting to share it with the world, then make me suddenly unqualified to speak about science I know well. Or must I now remain silent, excuse myself from the debate. And what about NCN. If she wants to defend her position, or argue the science, does she now have to just swallow it? Does she not have a right to express herself (right or wrong)?
And what qualified scientists do you have up your sleeve who would come around and debate this or any topic, who has no interest that might be biased? I don't see any.
So tell us your story – what brings you here? What are your biases? What do you do in the real world? |
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:33 pm |
loopylori wrote: |
All I got from this thread was wrinkles, from frowning whilst trying to make sense of the information that may or may not have been here somewhere. Sighs. |
I also plead guilty of not being able to actually make a really informed decision - on anything. When both sides of the argument submit scientific information that reads equally compelling, what is the consumer supposed to do? - especially when the science goes in one ear and out the other without any real understanding.
I would prefer to judge a product by measurable/physical biological improvements to the skin - without side-effects, of course. |
_________________ Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:28 pm |
Keliu wrote: |
loopylori wrote: |
All I got from this thread was wrinkles, from frowning whilst trying to make sense of the information that may or may not have been here somewhere. Sighs. |
I also plead guilty of not being able to actually make a really informed decision - on anything. When both sides of the argument submit scientific information that reads equally compelling, what is the consumer supposed to do? - especially when the science goes in one ear and out the other without any real understanding.
I would prefer to judge a product by measurable/physical biological improvements to the skin - without side-effects, of course. |
Considering that this is a consumer forum and most scientists have no reason to visit, there really isn't much qualified debate going on here (not that I really want to read it anyway).
But at a minimum, for any product I would just like to see some clinicial studies (or atleast some VISIA analysis), and some before and after pics and I would be a happy camper. Call me simple (or stupid) perhaps, but I'm not a scientist and don't plan to be one when I grow up. |
_________________ No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:36 pm |
Dr. J
You are twisting my statement, I did not impose any "rule", I said "a simple rule of thumb". I have no bias that concerns these ingredients, or you for that matter.
My point was/is simple, if anyone has a monetary gain on the outcome, then their opinions are not un-biased. To say I have a "hidden agenda" to state this is absurd.
I find you telling me to go elsewhere for my trusted sources, uncalled for. I find EDS a very trusted source and normally a very friendly environment. For the record, my comment was simple, not rude, and not intended to "tweak your scientific nose".
Good luck to you, it was not my intention to debate your intentions, nor will I. |
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:38 pm |
Tiny wrote: |
I find a simple rule of thumb tends to work here:
Anyone selling a product now or in the near future has a stake in us believing their side to this debate. All "science arguments" in this thread are from individuals making money on their own products (now or in the very near future). So I would prefer input from science not debated by the "sellers", or anyone making a profit. |
The only way you are going to achieve that is to read the published studies or a degree level + textbook from a respected publishing house yourself.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
http://www.lww.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/topCategories_11851_-1_12551
http://www.us.elsevierhealth.com/home.jsp?sgCountry=GB
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/index.html |
_________________ Sensitivity, forehead pigmentation & elevens, nose & chin clogged pores. Topicals: Aloe vera, squalane, lactic acid, Myfawnie KinNiaNag HG: Weleda calendula, Lanolips, Guinot masque essentiel, Flexitol Naturals, Careprost. Gadgets: Vaughter dermarollers, Lightstim. |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:02 pm |
DrJ wrote: |
Tiny wrote: |
I find a simple rule of thumb tends to work here:
Anyone selling a product now or in the near future has a stake in us believing their side to this debate. All "science arguments" in this thread are from individuals making money on their own products (now or in the very near future). So I would prefer input from science not debated by the "sellers", or anyone making a profit. |
Well, if you prefer input from elsewhere and others, why not just go elsewhere and talk to your trusted sources? Why did you feel the need to share this opinion (excuse me, rule) here. To tweak our scientific noses?
Everyone has biases. if there is not a profit motive there are plenty of other motives. This has been studied ad nauseum, not just in science but in journalism, politics, you name it. You cannot invalidate scientific opinion so easily, even though it is easy to imagine that you have a motive to do so. We don't know what it is yet, because we don't know you. But if we did, we would find some reason why you decided to post your opinion. We're glad you did, don't get me wrong. But to pretend you have no biases, or any of us, is just plain "head in the sand". Rather than get lost in the ":who has bias" arguments, why don't we just all admit our biases, and get on with the scientific debate. I'm not asking anyone to believe me because I'm me. I'm just a trained signpost pointing to 1. published literature, 2. common rules of logic. The evidence stands on its own - doesn't need me.
If you want to know all my biases, I discuss them on BFT regularly. BTW it might interest you to know that I wrote about the non-science of Renovage long before I ever had an idea for a product. Did doing some science, and wanting to share it with the world, then make me suddenly unqualified to speak about science I know well. Or must I now remain silent, excuse myself from the debate. And what about NCN. If she wants to defend her position, or argue the science, does she now have to just swallow it? Does she not have a right to express herself (right or wrong)?
And what qualified scientists do you have up your sleeve who would come around and debate this or any topic, who has no interest that might be biased? I don't see any.
So tell us your story – what brings you here? What are your biases? What do you do in the real world? |
Dr. J, there was no need for you to get so defensive or take the post so personally. You seem to be itchin' for a fight. Have you been drinking too much caffeine? |
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:15 pm |
I'm becoming a little tired of being told to go and do my homework! As a consumer, I have no intention of reading a degree level textbook on chemistry - simply put, I would have Buckley's of understanding it! |
_________________ Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:49 pm |
Keliu wrote: |
I'm becoming a little tired of being told to go and do my homework! As a consumer, I have no intention of reading a degree level textbook on chemistry - simply put, I would have Buckley's of understanding it! |
And I'm a little tired of being attacked and accused when I am trying to be helpful. I haven't suggested you do anything, I was responding to Tiny who said they "would prefer input from science". What other solution is there if people don't trust Barefacedtruth, DragoN or NCN? AFAIK Essentialdayspa has few cell biologists or dermatologists. Even if we did many derms have a finger in the skincare sales pie.
I have studied molecular biology but am a solid decade out of date, have never studied it to DrJ's level and take meds that interfere with my memory. I can't follow half of it any more than you can, so I trust certain people in some aspects and do my own research for the rest. I've commented on what I do know about cell culture and it is intimated I am in Cellese's pocket! Most of these threads are going round in circles, too many people on EDS have stepped over the line dividing healthy skepticism from paranoia IMO. Not intimating you personally, Keliu, the last is a general observation. |
_________________ Sensitivity, forehead pigmentation & elevens, nose & chin clogged pores. Topicals: Aloe vera, squalane, lactic acid, Myfawnie KinNiaNag HG: Weleda calendula, Lanolips, Guinot masque essentiel, Flexitol Naturals, Careprost. Gadgets: Vaughter dermarollers, Lightstim. |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:09 pm |
Firefox7275 wrote: |
What other solution is there if people don't trust Barefacedtruth, DragoN or NCN? |
As I see it, the only viable solution is to judge something on measurable biological results. Isn't this the yardstick by which all pharmaceuticals are judged? For example, what would be the point in me taking my blood pressure medication every day if it wasn't going to lower my blood pressure? And I have never thought it necessary for me to read a degree level book on blood pressure meds.
All I'm saying is, as a consumer, I want to see factual results and not subjective opinions. |
_________________ Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:10 pm |
Quote: |
Everyone has biases. if there is not a profit motive there are plenty of other motives. |
Guilty as charged. I want results.
Here's the kicker DrJ, even in the world of DIY, there is more horse hockey than effective extracts being sold. It's quite vile.
Don't spin me a story about the wonders of XYZ extract and sell it to me not standardized for the active component, diluted in water and glycerin and oxidized. Spare me.
Keliu
Quote: |
When both sides of the argument submit scientific information that reads equally compelling, what is the consumer supposed to do? - especially when the science goes in one ear and out the other without any real understanding. |
The argument FOR is not in the least bit compelling Re:GGA. Same goes for a number of other bogus compounds. However, if you do as DrJ and I have done, which is to speak out, we become targets. "It's not professional"...but it is professional to promote bunk. I have yet to "get" how that works. Quite frankly I don't plan on trying it on for size either.
It makes me a very unpopular person you can be sure.
Quote: |
All I'm saying is, as a consumer, I want to see factual results and not subjective opinions. |
That is fair. And that costs $$ in testing. You are left with looking at the research at the compounds in isolation. There are several studies available on cosmetic compounds, also with histological data.
However, it is cheaper and easier to link a story of Telomere stabilization to a popular theory on aging, *hide* your *secret* data and make as many claims as you want. It's GRAS. |
_________________ 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 |
|
|
|
Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:20 pm |
loopylori wrote: |
All I got from this thread was wrinkles, from frowning whilst trying to make sense of the information that may or may not have been here somewhere. Sighs. |
Well, at least this comment got me smiling again! |
_________________ early 60's, fair skin, combo skin, very few fine lines, vertical lip lines, crows feet & 11's, fighting aging! Using Palancia HF, dermarollers, CPs, Retin A Micro, Safetox, AALS, Clairsonic |
|
|
Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:33 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. |
|
|
|
|