 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:40 am  |
| Keliu wrote: |
That's my understanding of the stem cell serums (such as the Osmosis one) - that they use the media which has been used to grow the stem cells in. The stem cells having leached "whatever" into the media. But didn't the representative from ISCO say that they weren't using this - what they are using I don't know.
Also, hasn't the issue of cancer been raised regarding the stimulation of stem cells also? I need DrJ's input on that one. |
That was my understanding, as well, and I am confused on what MissZ said about them not using conditioned media. Need to research this more. Yes, Dr. J's input would be most beneficial right about now! |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:44 am |
| Keliu wrote: |
That's my understanding of the stem cell serums (such as the Osmosis one) - that they use the media which has been used to grow the stem cells in. The stem cells having leached "whatever" into the media. But didn't the representative from ISCO say that they weren't using this - what they are using I don't know.
Also, hasn't the issue of cancer been raised regarding the stimulation of stem cells also? I need DrJ's input on that one. |
I don't know what ISCO is using, on the cancer concern I think Dr. J said it is the mixture of cytokines that matters. I know that is a simplistic explanation of what was a complex post he made. |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:21 am |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| Keliu wrote: |
That's my understanding of the stem cell serums (such as the Osmosis one) - that they use the media which has been used to grow the stem cells in. The stem cells having leached "whatever" into the media. But didn't the representative from ISCO say that they weren't using this - what they are using I don't know.
Also, hasn't the issue of cancer been raised regarding the stimulation of stem cells also? I need DrJ's input on that one. |
That was my understanding, as well, and I am confused on what MissZ said about them not using conditioned media. Need to research this more. Yes, Dr. J's input would be most beneficial right about now! |
Hopefully Dr. J will come and chime in, and correct me as I would not be the least surprised if my last post is a wee tad skewed!  |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:32 am |
Back by popular demand (thanks to all who PM’d me and e-mailed me at BFT).
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:57 am |
As to an EWWW factor, many things have that if we think about them, however they may also have great benefit to us.
Thanks for coming back and clarifying the above information. |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:14 am |
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). |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:17 am |
I'm thinking now you could write it for me. I think you may be a better writer anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:10 am |
Prolly... ...but you know the terms...
Please don't mix my "writing skills" up with this bunk though:
Teprenone improves the various manifestations associated with skin aging in mature skin; visibly reduces the appearance of fine lines, wrinkles, sun spots, large pores and skin redness, increases the skin's natural moisture content and barrier function, and enhances skin's overall firmness, tone and elasticity, while restoring the skin's overall texture.
Teprenone provides anti-aging and a protective effect against stress, by telomere stabilization and DNA maintenance (cell division). If offers improvement of tissue quality by optimal cell interactions (cell communication) and assists with rebalance of cell functions (metabolism). By delaying senescence, Teprenone can extend cell lifespan by one third.
Teprenone fights against all signs of aging. Truly the singular component necessary to fight ALL signs of aging and won't break the bank.
....That's the Renovage/ Teprenone crap...and not a single paper in the literature about its use in dermal applications, effect on the dermis when ingested...nothing. Total sales bull.
Personally, I vote for the Yak Meat tenderizer of anti aging purpose and better use than Renocrap any day of the week.
Guilty as charged of the italicized tidbits.
But I am confuzzled why the Yak meat tenderizer is sold diluted with water and glycern,then of course you need a preservative. It's a dry powder..  |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:13 am |
| DrJ wrote: |
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.
|
Hey, J! (Sorry brain dead from school and trying to retain my sense of humor!) So, ISCO Does use conditioned media, even though MissZ says they don't? What do you mean by they process it further? (I was most curious if there was something in that, which could have caused the redness in my cheeks.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:03 am |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
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.
|
Hey, J! (Sorry brain dead from school and trying to retain my sense of humor!) So, ISCO Does use conditioned media, even though MissZ says they don't? What do you mean by they process it further? (I was most curious if there was something in that, which could have caused the redness in my cheeks.) |
Missz is a marketing or customer relations person, I believe. I talked with the chief scientist (Dr. Craw). I don't know what additional processing they do - perhaps just filter out the cytokines they want. I think that's something they patented. It's perfectly legitimate way to do it.
You can ask missz how they could get the cytokines & growth factors out of the cells without it ever going into the media. That would be interesting. I'm willing to be wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:55 am |
| DrJ wrote: |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
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.
|
Hey, J! (Sorry brain dead from school and trying to retain my sense of humor!) So, ISCO Does use conditioned media, even though MissZ says they don't? What do you mean by they process it further? (I was most curious if there was something in that, which could have caused the redness in my cheeks.) |
Missz is a marketing or customer relations person, I believe. I talked with the chief scientist (Dr. Craw). I don't know what additional processing they do - perhaps just filter out the cytokines they want. I think that's something they patented. It's perfectly legitimate way to do it.
You can ask missz how they could get the cytokines & growth factors out of the cells without it ever going into the media. That would be interesting. I'm willing to be wrong. |
I suppose they could be separating cells from media, then grinding up the cells. But then you would get tons of stuff you don't want (nuclear material, etc). The whole point of these cells amking cytokines is that they immediately export them into the intercellular space (which in the lab is the media). |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:10 pm |
| Thanks Dr. J. I am going to try to find out more information. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:02 pm |
| DrJ wrote: |
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. |
Not advocating just providing what her credentials are.
Hannah Sivak, Ph.D.Dr. Hannah Sivak did her doctorate research at the Institute for Biochemical Research in Buenos Aires directed by Dr. L.F. Leloir (Nobel Laureate for Chemistry, 1970). Her publications include one book and more than 60 papers in international, refereed journals and in books, dealing with different aspects of biology, biochemistry, molecular biology and biotechnology. Dr. Sivak was Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Michigan State University (1990-2002) and Research Fellow at the Universities of York and Sheffield, United Kingdom (1980-1990). Professor Sivak retired from academia in 2002 and now consults as scientific advisor for a number of skin care companies. In 2005 she founded Skin Actives Scientific to provide users with the best actives in the world at affordable prices.
A complete listing of Dr. Sivak's publications can be found here.(link on site)
http://www.skinactives.com/About-Us.html |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:29 pm |
| DarkMoon wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
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. |
Not advocating just providing what her credentials are.
Hannah Sivak, Ph.D.Dr. Hannah Sivak did her doctorate research at the Institute for Biochemical Research in Buenos Aires directed by Dr. L.F. Leloir (Nobel Laureate for Chemistry, 1970). Her publications include one book and more than 60 papers in international, refereed journals and in books, dealing with different aspects of biology, biochemistry, molecular biology and biotechnology. Dr. Sivak was Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Michigan State University (1990-2002) and Research Fellow at the Universities of York and Sheffield, United Kingdom (1980-1990). Professor Sivak retired from academia in 2002 and now consults as scientific advisor for a number of skin care companies. In 2005 she founded Skin Actives Scientific to provide users with the best actives in the world at affordable prices.
A complete listing of Dr. Sivak's publications can be found here.(link on site)
http://www.skinactives.com/About-Us.html |
Seems like a legitimate scientist, someone who should be able to examine and assess the literature. Let's ask her to read some current relevant publications (DragoN is compiling?), and if she has questions, doubts, or whatever about any of it we can debate it here. Fair enough? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:18 am |
One tenet of science is that there will always be differences of opinion. and that scientists should be willing to debate one another on the data. Different interpretations are fine, but cite the data. Maybe we could invite Dr. Hannah here to defend her position in a respectful debate. No name calling or other junk.
Somebody who knows here want to do that? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:42 am |
| DrJ, as you mentioned some posts back, maybe this discussion should be put in a separate thread. At least to me, this appears to have turned into more of a discussion about an ingredient/s than a particular product and a debate of sorts with Dr. Hannah if she is amenable. I only know of Dr. Hannah and am not in a position to extend an invitation to her for a debate. |
_________________
53 and starting to show it |
|
|
|
|
Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:10 pm |
| salli wrote: |
| DrJ, as you mentioned some posts back, maybe this discussion should be put in a separate thread. At least to me, this appears to have turned into more of a discussion about an ingredient/s than a particular product and a debate of sorts with Dr. Hannah if she is amenable. I only know of Dr. Hannah and am not in a position to extend an invitation to her for a debate. |
I tend to agree about this thread.
I also am in no position to request Hannah's participation here on EDS. I have purchased from the site twice since Aug. 2009 after joining EDS and have had no interaction with her at all ever. |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
 |
Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:09 pm |
| I think discussions should be about ingredients, not people. If you don't agree that a certain ingredient should be used just state your case. It's OK to talk about a certain product too, but leave personalities out of it. I think all of these business people are well-intentioned, although they may be misinformed. Provide the data that shows why they are misinformed, don't attack the people. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:14 pm |
| jom, I agree with you that discussions should be about products and not personalities. I became rather suspect of the agendas of some people when that began and then they picked another ingredient that had just been introduced into a line by the same company when there are numerous companies that use the same ingredient/s. I have a question, if you already had a reputable company why would you introduce products with ingredients that were suspect of causing problems? I have a gut feeling that this isn't so much about ingredients. |
_________________
53 and starting to show it |
|
|
|
|
Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:32 pm |
| salli wrote: |
| I have a question, if you already had a reputable company why would you introduce products with ingredients that were suspect of causing problems? I have a gut feeling that this isn't so much about ingredients. |
As I said, I think these business people are well-intentioned and truly believe in their product. I think they just may be misinformed. They could just be believing some marketing hype that was sold to them without doing their thorough due diligence on a product. Like researching the science and consulting with experts. They could think they thoroughly understand an ingredient when they really don't know enough about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:42 pm |
| jom, your point is well taken and yes alot of what we get from the internet is just advertisement along with misinformation. I would like to add, that from what I understand, testing in France, which is where the company that produces this ingredient I believe is located, is much more stringent than in the U.S. Please correct me if I am wrong. I am truly not trying to be argumentative. |
_________________
53 and starting to show it |
|
|
|
|
Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:05 pm |
| jom wrote: |
| salli wrote: |
| I have a question, if you already had a reputable company why would you introduce products with ingredients that were suspect of causing problems? I have a gut feeling that this isn't so much about ingredients. |
As I said, I think these business people are well-intentioned and truly believe in their product. I think they just may be misinformed. They could just be believing some marketing hype that was sold to them without doing their thorough due diligence on a product. Like researching the science and consulting with experts. They could think they thoroughly understand an ingredient when they really don't know enough about it. |
Agree with jom. The industry works like this. The ingredients manufacturers market their latest & greatest ingredients to the product makers. Problem is, most of it is whacky science (doesnt even make sense scientifically), or flimsy science (maybe it works, but where is the evidence?). Problem is that about 90% of it is in the whacky category. Teprenome is a prime example. For a full detailed exposition on that, see my piece at barefeacedtruth. That leaves about 10% that is worthy of discussion. Exaple there might by Lifeline. I had original thought that it was cytokines & growth factors exported by stem cells into the extracellular space, like happens in the body. Turns out it is broken up cells, with all intracellular contents exposed, then post-processed to create an active. Now, the hypothesis is scientific and reasonable. The company has done good work to show its validity, but there is no external validation yet (nobody else has replicated the work, there are no similar ingredient/products on the market, there is not much of a track record. But there are "reasons to believe". There are no reasons to believe in Tepronome/Renovage other than as an anti-ulcer drug the the FDA turned down for safety reasons.
So, if the product makers trust the ingredients makers, then you can get real scientists using stuff they have been led to believe is valid. Whether or not it is. The onus is on the product maker. You would think that a desire for a good reputation alone would make them cautious. But it turns out the marketplace is driven by hopes & promises, not scientific reality. You folks here are the exception. You really care about what's in there. But many are unawares. Don't ask, don't tell. Entire brands are built on wishes & dreams. The guys talking about science get shouted down.
That's our starting point. Let's change the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:17 pm |
| DrJ, I've spent/wasted way too much money not to believe at least a certain portion of what you say. What I don't understand is that why I'm seeing such great results with this particular product. I would love to see the portion of this thread that deals with ingredients moved to a separate topic so that we could just discuss ingredients/actives. I think it would be incredibly helpful to everyone involved rather than target a specific company. |
_________________
53 and starting to show it |
|
|
|
|
Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:22 pm |
| salli wrote: |
| jom, your point is well taken and yes alot of what we get from the internet is just advertisement along with misinformation. I would like to add, that from what I understand, testing in France, which is where the company that produces this ingredient I believe is located, is much more stringent than in the U.S. Please correct me if I am wrong. I am truly not trying to be argumentative. |
Hi Salli, I'm sorry if I came across as being argumentative. I didn't want to start a fight with you I was just explaining my position. I believe this ingredient is from Japan, not France. I don't think it has ever been truly tested as a skin care ingredient. It was meant to be an ulcer drug. I will refer you to a post by Dr. J on the forum on February 8:
"Hello skin care enthusiasts. Newbie here. I am one of the physician-scientists who has researched this particular product, and found it lacking in scientific rationale. In fact, the science defies known logic. The active is claimed to have something to do with telomeres (ends of DNA strands that shorten with aging) and yet there is extensive published medical literature that denies that, and in fact shows that it induces heat shock proteins (sometimes called cell death warning signals). Teprenone is a Japanese anti-ulcer drug that could not get FDA approval here in the U.S., for safety reasons, I believe. The presence of this drug in a skin care product deeply troubles me. Not to mention sensing like this whole DNA myth they created is an attempt to fool folks into paying more than they need to for what might be a good moisturizer. Happy to answer questions."
Also here is a link to the article he wrote on bare faced truth about the science behind this product:
http://barefacedtruth.com/2011/12/26/renovage-induces-heat-shock-proteins-not-telomerase-this-not-dna-repair/ |
|
|
|
|
| Wed Apr 24, 2024 2:10 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. |
|
 |
|
|
