7 Degrees of Stem Cell Separation
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:55 pm

I'll pull together a summary of the questions and get them sent off.

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:05 am

bethany wrote:

I'll pull together a summary of the questions and get them sent off.

Thanks for doing this Bethany, I see its all been asked that I would. Very Happy

, my main concern is safety, if a disease could sneak thru, their process of making. I feel pretty confident no, since they are not using the real stuff, rather take from it to grow more, or some such, but that would be my question.

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:09 am

I would also like to know where cytokines stand in comparison to Retin-A.

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:10 am

Can i echo tiny, really its my own concern along with all the other questions

Thanks bethany

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:28 am

Tiny wrote:

bethany wrote:

I'll pull together a summary of the questions and get them sent off.

Thanks for doing this Bethany, I see its all been asked that I would. Very Happy

, my main concern is safety, if a disease could sneak thru, their process of making. I feel pretty confident no, since they are not using the real stuff, rather take from it to grow more, or some such, but that would be my question.

I can tell you that there will be conflicting professional opinions on this matter, and no single professional will have the absolute answer. The major concern is not necessarily how human sourced materials are screened presently, but rather the inability to screen for the as yet unknown infectants. Given that an infectant may be unknown, the means of infection and the ease of infection is also unknown. Although cells are harvested from a human donor and then replicated in a lab (actual human foreskins are not contained in every bottle of TNS, for example), we may not know how far removed from original source an infectant need be in order to reinfect, as we don't know about the infectant yet. We cannot know the qualities of a disease unless we identify the disease's existence first. Does that make sense? I think this concern is more pronounced when applying human derived products to broken skin, such as post-rolling.

My point is that this particular question, Tiny, will not have an answer at this point in time...the best available are educated guesses from specialists in the field. Smile

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:32 am

ethel,
your response, is now making me rethink my rolling protocol Embarassed

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:26 am

I guess we don't know what is going to come to light in the future, look at thalidomide it was hailed as a miracle drug. Then look at the awful effects that resulted in the babies of those using it.
Asbestos another wonderful invention, not for those that died from it's long term affects.

I guess we find out what we can for now and decide if we are willing to take the risk or not. I am willing for now.

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:35 am

EthelM wrote:

Tiny wrote:

bethany wrote:

I'll pull together a summary of the questions and get them sent off.

Thanks for doing this Bethany, I see its all been asked that I would. Very Happy

, my main concern is safety, if a disease could sneak thru, their process of making. I feel pretty confident no, since they are not using the real stuff, rather take from it to grow more, or some such, but that would be my question.

I can tell you that there will be conflicting professional opinions on this matter, and no single professional will have the absolute answer. The major concern is not necessarily how human sourced materials are screened presently, but rather the inability to screen for the as yet unknown infectants. Given that an infectant may be unknown, the means of infection and the ease of infection is also unknown. Although cells are harvested from a human donor and then replicated in a lab (actual human foreskins are not contained in every bottle of TNS, for example), we may not know how far removed from original source an infectant need be in order to reinfect, as we don't know about the infectant yet. We cannot know the qualities of a disease unless we identify the disease's existence first. Does that make sense? I think this concern is more pronounced when applying human derived products to broken skin, such as post-rolling.

My point is that this particular question, Tiny, will not have an answer at this point in time...the best available are educated guesses from specialists in the field. Smile

Makes perfect sense, I recall the same concerns arising when TNS came out. So the real question might be how removed from the "source" are these cells. I understand we don't know how far removed they must be, but an answer to that might help one decided if its removed "enough" for peace of mind.

I agree its more of a question for "rolling" than for just topical application. TNS has been out for quiet a few years now, I have not heard of any horror stories, but not sure anyone is using it while poking holes in their face to help deliver it.

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:46 am

Tiny wrote:

EthelM wrote:

Tiny wrote:

bethany wrote:

I'll pull together a summary of the questions and get them sent off.

Thanks for doing this Bethany, I see its all been asked that I would. Very Happy

, my main concern is safety, if a disease could sneak thru, their process of making. I feel pretty confident no, since they are not using the real stuff, rather take from it to grow more, or some such, but that would be my question.

I can tell you that there will be conflicting professional opinions on this matter, and no single professional will have the absolute answer. The major concern is not necessarily how human sourced materials are screened presently, but rather the inability to screen for the as yet unknown infectants. Given that an infectant may be unknown, the means of infection and the ease of infection is also unknown. Although cells are harvested from a human donor and then replicated in a lab (actual human foreskins are not contained in every bottle of TNS, for example), we may not know how far removed from original source an infectant need be in order to reinfect, as we don't know about the infectant yet. We cannot know the qualities of a disease unless we identify the disease's existence first. Does that make sense? I think this concern is more pronounced when applying human derived products to broken skin, such as post-rolling.

My point is that this particular question, Tiny, will not have an answer at this point in time...the best available are educated guesses from specialists in the field. Smile

Makes perfect sense, I recall the same concerns arising when TNS came out. So the real question might be how removed from the "source" are these cells. I understand we don't know how far removed they must be, but an answer to that might help one decided if its removed "enough" for peace of mind.

I agree its more of a question for "rolling" than for just topical application. TNS has been out for quiet a few years now, I have not heard of any horror stories, but not sure anyone is using it while poking holes in their face to help deliver it.

Well, no. The real question is what kind of a risk are we, as consumers, willing to accept? There absolutely is a strong probability, perhaps even a certainty, that a new infectant will be discovered in the future. Current human derived materials are not, obviously, screened for that new infectant. The new infectant might be discovered tomorrow, or in a decade.

A hypothetical; If you found out that human derived SC materials were not currently screened for HIV or Hepatitis C, would you still use them?

If it is possible that in two years researchers will identify a new, more aggressive, more easily spread mutation of Hepatitis or HIV, and that currently no human derived SC materials are being screened for either, would you still use them?

And, what if stem cells themselves, from certain human sources, were able to behave differently than science now expects (this is a relatively new scientific vista after all) and played a role in disease susceptibility, such increasing the risk of development of diseases aside from potential infection of the donor sources?

See my point? It's what we don't yet know about that is most risky.

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:58 am

I completely see your point, your correct any product born from another body will or could have a risk of what we NOW DO KNOW and especially what WE DON'T YET KNOW.

I still think an understanding on how these are processed, ie. is any real products ever left anywhere, is worth looking into. Theoretically even a newborn could have a "new" none known disease, one the newborn obtained from the parents. From what I have read that answer is no and I also am aware that just because I read it does not make it so. Again, your point is a good one.

eta: I hope the answer on processing is good, since I've been using this for over several months. Confused

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:08 am

Tiny wrote:

I completely see your point, your correct any product born from another body will or could have a risk of what we NOW DO KNOW and especially what WE DON'T YET KNOW.

I still think an understanding on how these are processed, ie. is any real products ever left anywhere. Theoretically even a newborn could have a "new" none known disease, one the newborn obtained from the parents. From what I have read that answer is no and I also am aware that just because I read it does not make it so. Again, your point is a good one.

Well, much of the time mutation is involved in the process. We're already seeing this with flu strains every year, and as a side issue caused by over use of antibiotics...but that begins to trail off into another, larger topic.

My perspective is that the unknown risks, paired with the very meager sound scientific proof of efficacy in topical application, make SC products unattractive to me, especially when we have safer, proven actives that can do the very same job as SC...and frankly, we don't even know what sort of a job (if any) SC does!

I am certain that any improvements visibly seen in the skin from using an SC product fewer than three months is not due to the SC portion of the ingredients making any repairs. Skin just doesn't work that way.

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:35 am

I am not quite sure whether Im following that. My understanding was that as a virus, flu will and does mutate anyway given its nature as viruses do, which is why coming up with vaccines can be quite complicated.

Also given that antibiotics have no real effect on viruses, Im not sure where their overuse comes in?

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:57 am

I agree using human material brings along a lot of potential risks we just don't know yet.
My concern is more, that adding cytokines haphazardly could mess with your own cytokine production mechanisms, like taking hormones messes up your own hormone system. The question is, is there a viable equilibrium created when taking this, and what happens when you stop using them? If for instance your skin function to deal with infections is impaired that can become a problem.
This is why I think products like these should be tested over a longer period of time before they are put on the market.
Unless of course most cytokines are, due to short shelf life, already deteriorated when you put them on your skin. In that case it's the other ingredients that really matter (from what I have read on medical studies regarding cytokines, the stuff is mostly frozen and defrosted right before use, or used fresh from the lab).

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:24 am

10Sylvia5 wrote:

I am not quite sure whether Im following that. My understanding was that as a virus, flu will and does mutate anyway given its nature as viruses do, which is why coming up with vaccines can be quite complicated.

Also given that antibiotics have no real effect on viruses, Im not sure where their overuse comes in?

Viruses can and do indeed mutate. (Am I misunderstanding you? I'm not sure I'm following you, either. Sorry!) Although I used them in the same sentence, and perhaps shouldn't have so to avoid confusion, I mentioned virus mutation and antibiotic over use as two separate issues.

I didn't mention antibiotics as a treatment for viruses (as they are not), although many people erroneously use leftover prescription antibiotics for viruses and add to the overuse problem. Over use of antibiotics, even for their appropriate indications, is a widespread problem. I mention antibiotic overuse as it relates to immuno-supression, disease resistence, adapting new bacteria, etc.

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:25 am

Lotusesther wrote:

I agree using human material brings along a lot of potential risks we just don't know yet.
My concern is more, that adding cytokines haphazardly could mess with your own cytokine production mechanisms, like taking hormones messes up your own hormone system. The question is, is there a viable equilibrium created when taking this, and what happens when you stop using them? If for instance your skin function to deal with infections is impaired that can become a problem.
This is why I think products like these should be tested over a longer period of time before they are put on the market.

Unless of course most cytokines are, due to short shelf life, already deteriorated when you put them on your skin. In that case it's the other ingredients that really matter (from what I have read on medical studies regarding cytokines, the stuff is mostly frozen and defrosted right before use, or used fresh from the lab).

Excellent point!

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:50 am

thanks, I think that was a lost in translation moment Laughing

I think we are saying the same things Very Happy

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:00 pm

EthelM – I respect your opinion. I have actually considered many of the points you have raised when I started looking into the stem cell arena. And I think your questions about risk are spot on.

Me personally - I view stem cell skin care very much like hormone replacement therapy – it’s not for everyone. It requires careful consideration. And just like HRT, I think one needs to be at a certain point in life to even be considering it. But I’ve thought through the issues, and decided that I am willing to take the risk. I am happy to answer someone’s questions about the skin care products that I am using, and I am always willing to give my opinion, but I would not recommend a stem cell product - simply because I think it needs to be a personal choice.

When I was much younger I thought that hormone replacement therapy was a terrible thing – then I went through menopause – and had a change of heart. There are many things that influence the type of risks that we are willing to take. I just spent the past week caring for my 94 year old mother who is fine physically, but quite mentally impaired. I’d like to think it’s not totally about vanity, but I’m bound and determined to try to stay young.

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:12 pm

Lotusesther wrote:

...
Unless of course most cytokines are, due to short shelf life, already deteriorated when you put them on your skin. In that case it's the other ingredients that really matter (from what I have read on medical studies regarding cytokines, the stuff is mostly frozen and defrosted right before use, or used fresh from the lab).

This is definitely something that I would like to know more about – the shelf life of cytokines. I can go back and find the old post if necessary, but in one of our “scientific discussions” I asked whether it is possible to overdo cytokines, and the answer was that our skin has receptors and once those receptors are full then the rest is just wasted. To be fair, I’ve seen Hannah over at Skin Actives give this response regarding EGF. So, if our skin can only handle so many externally applied growth factors, what’s the point in having a “line of products”? By adding cytokines to many/all products in the line, isn’t that just a way of jacking up prices? (since the sc conditioned medium is the most expensive ingredient). Or, is the real point that there are so few growth factors, cytokines, etc., etc., that are functioning in these formulas, that it is virtually impossible to fill up the receptors? Just wondering.

Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:14 pm

An article posted online today reports on a company that makes a stem cell cream from an individual's own cells. This practice might address some of the risk factors. For 20K. Shock

But perhaps it's the wave of the future and the cost will come down. (ETA: The article points out a few of the questions/concerns about stem cells and cytokines that have already been discussed on the forum.)

From Stem-Cell Face Cream: Is It Worth It?:

Quote:

Today, Personal Cell Sciences is introducing a line of facial treatments called U-Autologous. Autologous means taken from your own body and, just as the name suggests, a little bit of your own DNA will be in every drop. The first three products are labeled Stem Cell Regenerative Firming Serum, Moisturizer, and Eye Cream, which are all slight misnomers, since, according to Natalia Drulle, the company’s creative director, “they do not contain any stem cells.” Stem cells can’t actually survive in a topical cream, she explains, but we’ll get back to that in a second.

First, don’t expect instant gratification: Developing a face cream with your own cell tissues takes time. The process begins at the office of a surgeon, where a quarter cup of fat is removed from your abdomen and sent to a lab. There, it’s cleansed of impurities and cultured with an enzyme that yields a stew of adult stem cells and related substances—growth factors, fibroblasts, cytokines—known as the Stromal Vascular Fraction. “These are proteins spit out by your stem cells that give instructions to skin cells and other tissues to repair themselves,” says Drulle.

Six weeks later, a technician removes several CCs of your personal brew from a frigid storage vat, mixes it into a base made up of emulsions rich in antioxidants, and ships it to you (or U, in the company’s parlance) in pump bottles. In testing, the firming serum from the new line was used twice daily by 20 women, ages 25 to 60. After eight weeks, says Fredric Stern, a cosmetic surgeon in Bellevue, Washington, who participated in the study, there was a 15 to 85 percent improvement in wrinkle depth, and 78 percent of the women had significant improvement in elastin and collagen production.

While those numbers sound impressive, there is actually no way of knowing how much of the benefit came from the base emulsion and how much was due to the added stem cell-derived concoction, according to an independent cell scientist we consulted.

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:33 pm

Panda1 wrote:

I asked whether it is possible to overdo cytokines, and the answer was that our skin has receptors and once those receptors are full then the rest is just wasted. To be fair, I’ve seen Hannah over at Skin Actives give this response regarding EGF. So, if our skin can only handle so many externally applied growth factors, what’s the point in having a “line of products”? By adding cytokines to many/all products in the line, isn’t that just a way of jacking up prices? (since the sc conditioned medium is the most expensive ingredient). Or, is the real point that there are so few growth factors, cytokines, etc., etc., that are functioning in these formulas, that it is virtually impossible to fill up the receptors? Just wondering.

I did find this information about the stem cell face lift interesting. It talks about the adult stem cell do not expand without limits. Now this is NOT the same as using a potion/lotion. So I don't know how applicable this is. This doctor does do both stem cell face lifts and PRP(Vampire beauty) so she does work with stem cells some. I can't vouch for this doctor( good or bad) but did find some of the information on her site interesting.

Adult stem cells, which are derived from the fat, are able to differentiate and become unique tissue types including: fat, bone, muscle, cartilage, and nerve covering. They are activated when there is an inflammatory response to an injury or procedure. Therefore, when it is used as part of a procedure to help heal and repair a defect, the inflammation caused from the procedure helps activate the stem cells and mend the damaged area. Adult stem cells will divide and grow; they then take from the surrounding tissue. For example, they will become bone next to bone and fat next to fat. Adult stem cells do not expand without limit; they are programmed to know when to stop growing in order to keep the natural form and size of the specific tissue in the area where they are injected. IN addition the stem cells secrete growth factors. These seven growth factors help the newly transplanted fat thrive. In addition it helps revitalize and regenerate the skin of the face and the hands.

Safe and Affordable

Subsequently, these adult stem cells are found in your fat, they are relatively easily accessible with ample supply in most individuals. This can be carried out at a fraction of the price of Traditional Facelifts. They are quite safe because they come from your own body’s fat and are injected back into you. This procedure is performed without the need for general anesthesia with very pleasing results. The cost is around $6000 which is all inclusive

http://www.drgailhumble.com/stem-cell-face-lift/

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:02 pm

Panda1 wrote:

EthelM – I respect your opinion. I have actually considered many of the points you have raised when I started looking into the stem cell arena. And I think your questions about risk are spot on.

Me personally - I view stem cell skin care very much like hormone replacement therapy – it’s not for everyone. It requires careful consideration. And just like HRT, I think one needs to be at a certain point in life to even be considering it. But I’ve thought through the issues, and decided that I am willing to take the risk. I am happy to answer someone’s questions about the skin care products that I am using, and I am always willing to give my opinion, but I would not recommend a stem cell product - simply because I think it needs to be a personal choice.

When I was much younger I thought that hormone replacement therapy was a terrible thing – then I went through menopause – and had a change of heart. There are many things that influence the type of risks that we are willing to take. I just spent the past week caring for my 94 year old mother who is fine physically, but quite mentally impaired. I’d like to think it’s not totally about vanity, but I’m bound and determined to try to stay young.

Panda1, I agree with you entirely. As well, I use hormone cream (estriol) facially, and I am not menopausal, so I absolutely grasp your perspective on this topic. Smile

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:07 pm

CookieD wrote:

Panda1 wrote:

I asked whether it is possible to overdo cytokines, and the answer was that our skin has receptors and once those receptors are full then the rest is just wasted. To be fair, I’ve seen Hannah over at Skin Actives give this response regarding EGF. So, if our skin can only handle so many externally applied growth factors, what’s the point in having a “line of products”? By adding cytokines to many/all products in the line, isn’t that just a way of jacking up prices? (since the sc conditioned medium is the most expensive ingredient). Or, is the real point that there are so few growth factors, cytokines, etc., etc., that are functioning in these formulas, that it is virtually impossible to fill up the receptors? Just wondering.

I did find this information about the stem cell face lift interesting. It talks about the adult stem cell do not expand without limits. Now this is NOT the same as using a potion/lotion. So I don't know how applicable this is. This doctor does do both stem cell face lifts and PRP(Vampire beauty) so she does work with stem cells some. I can't vouch for this doctor( good or bad) but did find some of the information on her site interesting.

Adult stem cells, which are derived from the fat, are able to differentiate and become unique tissue types including: fat, bone, muscle, cartilage, and nerve covering. They are activated when there is an inflammatory response to an injury or procedure. Therefore, when it is used as part of a procedure to help heal and repair a defect, the inflammation caused from the procedure helps activate the stem cells and mend the damaged area. Adult stem cells will divide and grow; they then take from the surrounding tissue. For example, they will become bone next to bone and fat next to fat. Adult stem cells do not expand without limit; they are programmed to know when to stop growing in order to keep the natural form and size of the specific tissue in the area where they are injected. IN addition the stem cells secrete growth factors. These seven growth factors help the newly transplanted fat thrive. In addition it helps revitalize and regenerate the skin of the face and the hands.

Safe and Affordable

Subsequently, these adult stem cells are found in your fat, they are relatively easily accessible with ample supply in most individuals. This can be carried out at a fraction of the price of Traditional Facelifts. They are quite safe because they come from your own body’s fat and are injected back into you. This procedure is performed without the need for general anesthesia with very pleasing results. The cost is around $6000 which is all inclusive

http://www.drgailhumble.com/stem-cell-face-lift/

This is true, and essentially this is a modified autologous fat transfer. On the East Coast, Dr. Lisa Donofrio is a super fat transfer specialist.

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:36 pm

I think Ethel has raised some very good points. But in regard to comparing hormone replacement and cytokine use (in terms of risk) I would point out that hormone replacement comes under medical control - as do all drugs.

These cytokine serums to not have to comply with any government regulations - they are not a drug. Unlike Retin-A, which in most countries IS classified as a drug. My point in bringing this up again is that I'm still confused about the actual biological effect on the body of these cytokines. If there were real risks I would have thought that the FDA and other medical authorities would have been all over this. This is why I asked the question above, how does a cytokine topical compare with Retin-A?

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:53 pm

Keliu wrote:

If there were real risks I would have thought that the FDA and other medical authorities would have been all over this. This is why I asked the question above, how does a cytokine topical compare with Retin-A?

Not necessarily. They don't control the cosmeceuticals. They go after the advertising/wording for a product, but I think it would take several people having a real issue before the FDA would think of stepping in.

free skin care · Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:58 pm

Renata wrote:

While those numbers sound impressive, there is actually no way of knowing how much of the benefit came from the base emulsion and how much was due to the added stem cell-derived concoction, according to an independent cell scientist we consulted.

And I think this is the problem with these products. How do we know if it isn't an ingredient in the product and not the media causing results? I guess we really don't!

Automatic Message

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

Click Here to join our community.

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