"Science" behind copper peptides
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 5:32 am

Keliu wrote:

However, if I'm going to stop using CPs - what else should I turn to?

You could possibly use some of the ingredients that have been proven to build collagen - Retin A, topical C, AHA (glycolic acid). All of these take time and consistent use (which is hard when I like to jump onto the newest rave here!), but I definitely saw a great improvement in my skin with firmness, improvement of jaw sag, and just overall better looking skin) when I was on Nu Derm and these products are the core of the program (of course Hydroquinone is a main ingredient, as well).

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 5:59 am

rileygirl wrote:

Keliu wrote:

However, if I'm going to stop using CPs - what else should I turn to?

You could possibly use some of the ingredients that have been proven to build collagen - Retin A, topical C, AHA (glycolic acid). All of these take time and consistent use (which is hard when I like to jump onto the newest rave here!), but I definitely saw a great improvement in my skin with firmness, improvement of jaw sag, and just overall better looking skin) when I was on Nu Derm and these products are the core of the program (of course Hydroquinone is a main ingredient, as well).

I do use Retin-A, but that's a drug not a cosmetic. I also use Vitamin C and a BHA - however, there are those who say you shouldn't use acids (302 proponents). Hydroquinone is also another contentious ingredient.

It wasn't really my intention to hijack this thread looking for alternatives to CPs but rather to highlight the fact that the choices are limited.

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 6:04 am

Keliu wrote:

It wasn't really my intention to hijack this thread looking for alternatives to CPs but rather to highlight the fact that the choices are limited.

Yes, the choices are fairly limited as far as what actually has been proven to work with studies behind them. However, if a person finds a product that they like, that they feel is making a difference in their skin, then they should use that. As long as they know what they are putting on their skin, and what possible risks/dangers there could be, it is their choice to use what they feel is making their skin look good. I think that was one of the purposes of this thread (at least in my mind).

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 6:26 am

rileygirl wrote:

Yes, the choices are fairly limited as far as what actually has been proven to work with studies behind them. However, if a person finds a product that they like, that they feel is making a difference in their skin, then they should use that. As long as they know what they are putting on their skin, and what possible risks/dangers there could be, it is their choice to use what they feel is making their skin look good. I think that was one of the purposes of this thread (at least in my mind).

Well, I think we've all agreed that if it's making you happy, then stick with it. But I think Josee's main concern was the science (or lack of) behind CPs. And it seems to me that we have the same issue with every cosmetic ingredient. Remember when we were discussing Vitamin C serums and people were citing all the studies that show that it's either oxidised by the time we use it or that it was unable to penetrate the skin?

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 6:42 am

Keliu wrote:

Well, I think we've all agreed that if it's making you happy, then stick with it. But I think Josee's main concern was the science (or lack of) behind CPs. And it seems to me that we have the same issue with every cosmetic ingredient. Remember when we were discussing Vitamin C serums and people were citing all the studies that show that it's either oxidised by the time we use it or that it was unable to penetrate the skin?

I recall that very well, but I also haven't read reports of sagging or damage from using C serum. For those of us that either haven't gone with CP's yet or have and began to see things they didn't like on their skin this thread has been a great help IMHO.
For those who are using CP's with good results I am thrilled, but I have chosen not to venture down that road. It's a personal decision that each person must make for themselves. The major difference I see is only 1 major proponent of CP's and the research is all about wound healing!
With other products you may need to weigh the information from several opposing camps but for me I prefer to base my choices on varying sources and peoples reviews. Smile

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 8:59 am

I'm very curious about this distinction between "drug" and "cosmetic". Keliu (you don't have to answer this I'm asking out of curiosity so feel free to ignore me!), what makes a difference in your eyes in the issue of cosmetics vs. drugs?

I'm asking because it does seem that most "cosmeceuticals" claim to do exactly what Retin-A does. The only difference is that with Retin-A we actually know it works and we know a little bit more about the mechanisms. So that's why I'm wondering what difference it makes.

I think there are quite a few products out there that also claim to increase collagen, reduce photoaging and that are not associated with anything dangerous or with bad reactions. For e.g. there are a lot of peptides (like Matrixyl), Q10, AHA.

PCI shows great promise though they need to do some placebo-controlled studies in humans since the published studies are mostly of animals and only measure before and after.

As I think I've said before, even if something doesn't have a lot of evidence to back an effect up, I think it's still worth trying!

However, the 2 things that I object the most to are:

a. Marketing a product saying that it has all kinds of science behind it as a distinguishing feature when it really doesn't.
You can cite studies and say... "hey, look at these studies... this shows promise... and if you add the "promise" to the great testimonials of our customers... then you'll realize that buying this product is the right choice!".

But that's different from making hard-core assertions and saying that the product is better than Retin-A for wrinkles and cortisone for inflammation. Those are HUGE statements that do not have anything to back it up and can actually mislead people.

b. "Creating" a theory of skin aging and scar healing that is absolutely not in line with current medical knowledge and then using this theory to justify people's bad reactions to the product.
The concept of "your skin is looking bad because damage is coming up" does not exist. So people whose skin's are looking bad are having a reaction (for example a reaction similar to the one that Retin-A causes). So people need to be made aware of this so they can make proper decisions. Because of people are (for example) sensitive to copper and have those "uglies" and then they're told that "oh no it's just damage coming up" and they continue to use it... they can actually damage their skin. This goes beyond the fact of selling something that might not work... this can actually cause harm. There's no excuse for that.

BTW, to all those who had bad reactions to any cosmetic product... you can report it to the FDA. You can do it anonymously. Reporting a bad reaction doesn't mean that you will get the manufacturer out of business or anything, it just means that if a lot of people have bad reactions, the product might be investigated. So then for e.g. the manufacturer might have to put a warning sign in the product, or might have to change some of the substances that make the product up, or the FDA might conclude that those adverse reactions were not directly related to the product. The FDA has only limited resources to investigate cosmetics and it's really consumer reports that help.

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 9:24 am

Josee,

Just for the sake of clarity I am posting how the FDA/Law defines a "Drug"
This is only a portion of what can be found on the following link, but it seems most relevant to the question.

http://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/ucm074201.htm

How does the law define a cosmetic?
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) defines cosmetics by their intended use, as "articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body...for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance" [FD&C Act, sec. 201(i)]. Among the products included in this definition are skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup preparations, shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, toothpastes, and deodorants, as well as any material intended for use as a component of a cosmetic product.
How does the law define a drug?
The FD&C Act defines drugs, in part, by their intended use, as "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals" [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].
How can a product be both a cosmetic and a drug?
Some products meet the definitions of both cosmetics and drugs. This may happen when a product has two intended uses. For example, a shampoo is a cosmetic because its intended use is to cleanse the hair. An antidandruff treatment is a drug because its intended use is to treat dandruff. Consequently, an antidandruff shampoo is both a cosmetic and a drug. Among other cosmetic/drug combinations are toothpastes that contain fluoride, deodorants that are also antiperspirants, and moisturizers and makeup marketed with sun-protection claims. Such products must comply with the requirements for both cosmetics and drugs.
What about "cosmeceuticals"?
The FD&C Act does not recognize any such category as "cosmeceuticals." A product can be a drug, a cosmetic, or a combination of both, but the term "cosmeceutical" has no meaning under the law.
How is a product's intended use established?
Intended use may be established in a number of ways. Among them are:
Claims stated on the product labeling, in advertising, on the Internet, or in other promotional materials. Certain claims may cause a product to be considered a drug, even if the product is marketed as if it were a cosmetic. Such claims establish the product as a drug because the intended use is to treat or prevent disease or otherwise affect the structure or functions of the human body. Some examples are claims that products will restore hair growth, reduce cellulite, treat varicose veins, or revitalize cells.

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 9:32 am

This has been one of the best threads I've read in my year on this forum. I am among those who has issues with scientific studies because they typically only measure a narrowly circumscribed range. I can think of a few cases in which a drug that passed scientific scrutiny was later withdrawn from the market because of horrendous side effects that controlled research didn't catch!

That said, I think most of us are willing to use a product based on anecdotal reports from others, which is what started me on the CPs (my investment to date: about $30 in their scar kit). I ignore most of the fluff I see on packaging ("97% see a reduction in wrinkles!") and recognize that most of the hype is the quintessential hope in a jar.

So if the CP bubble is burst, what is the answer? Or isn't there one--other than fillers, botox, and PS?

As for the dearth of 60+/pre-Baby Boomers on this forum, I don't think you will find many people in that age range anywhere online. My mother had a facelift a year or two ago, but I would bet she has never even read a forum, and I run into a lot of people in their 40s and 50s who are uncomfortable with technology beyond their Blackberries and email. So I think it is more a generational thing than a lack of interest in appearance. Or maybe at some age, most of us will just give up. Depressing.

Mon May 03, 2010 11:14 am

Hi
I am a new poster here, but I have been following this forum and the Skin Biology Forum for a while now.

I have been using the 2nd generation CPs for a few years now, and I think I have seen some improvements and I feel that I have been able to slow down the "aging process", but I cannot say for sure if the "improvements" are due to:

a. My use of 2nd generation copper peptides AND/OR
b. My regular use of hydroxy acids / peels AND/OR
c. My regular exercise and good dietary habits AND/OR
d. My regular use of supplements AND/OR
e. Genes

Although I am a regular user of the 2nd Gen Copper Peptides from Skin Biology, I have made some observations that concern me. I am sure the same observations have been mentioned in this forum before:

1. Although Dr Pickart invented the use of GHK Cu in cosmetics use, he did not own the patent to use GHK Cu in cosmetics after he left Procyte, and the patent that was held by Procyte did not expire until 2004. So, my question is, did Skin Biology "need" to invent a 2nd generation peptide product in order to market the "new" produts from a new company until they could legally produce GHK Cu products?

2. Soon after Procyte's patent on GHK-Cu expired in 2004, Skin Biology introduced their own GHK Cu product (I believe it was introduced around 2006-2007), and is currently marketed as a "gentler" form of Copper Peptide.

3. The SB website repeatedly cites research done on GHK-Cu, but is largely silent about any substantial/meaningful trials on their new 2nd Generation Copper Peptides.

4. As far as the "recommendations" for use of the 2nd Gen Peptides, the Skin Biology website very conveniently says "our clients developed these methods of use". They rely largely on anecdotal evidence and tell users to either "dilute" or use "milder" products when they complain about the "uglies"

5. Anyone questioning the CP products are immediately brushed off as "crazy trolls", or "unqualfied people"

At least from what I have read here, I don't believe people like Josee are unqualified. I don't know Josee, but Josee comes across as someone who has at least some training in this field and knows what they are talking about. I could be wrong.

On one hand, we cannot completely dismiss the claims of a person who has devoted his life (40 plus years) in Copper Peptides research. I don't think anyone in the world is more knowledgeable than Dr Pickart when it comes to Copper Peptides.

On the other hand, however, I am a little concerned that there is somewhat of a conflict of interest / commercial interests when it comes to claims regarding the New CP products.

Personally, I will continue using CPs because they appear to work for me. That is not to say that everyone out there should jump on the bandwagon.

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 2:08 pm

I just skimmed the posts from the last few days. It figures I just bought Skin Signals!!

I think it was Bethany who said if it seems to work to keep using it... I used Copper Peptides years ago and saw no change.

I do have a lot of gadgets and products. BUT for hte most part I use one or 2 things here and there. I dont have the skin care regimens that most of you guys seem to have.

SOOO... then is it likely that when you think your CPs are working - it really is the other topicals, devices, etc?

And are you guys more or less saying that this guy is a liar? I mean that pisses me off. Should he not have to be responsible for that?

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 4:06 pm

So, what do you guys think of MLAB skin care products? I just started using it and now I'm kind of scared that it could damage my skin. I know it has a lot of peptides in it.

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 4:08 pm

Hermosa wrote:

So if the CP bubble is burst, what is the answer? Or isn't there one--other than fillers, botox, and PS?

Retinoids (retin A/Renova/Tazorac) and a good L-ascorbic acid vit. C serum together with a high protection sunblock can help (with more scientific evidence backing them). AHAs can also contribute (mandelic acid seems to be a good option for mature skin as it's less irrritating than glycolic acid). Niacinamide/pro-Niacin is also worth trying (www.nia24.com).

And not to forget healthy diet (more greens, stop dairy, coffee, reduce meat and sugar), exercise (facial and rest of body), supplements, stress reduction.

It is better not to go down the route of aesthetic procedures/PS unless absolutely necessary. My Mum is 80 and she looks a lot better than a lot of her peers who had procedures done. They probably had procedures done when they were ?maybe 20 years younger and now that the rest of their skin has sagged, the "signs" of the procedures show up. For example, the places where the surgeon attached the skin for the face lift become more obvious and I don't think it's easy to reverse. Probably with age if the skin sags around fillers it would also be pretty ugly and also not possible to reverse. You don't want people seeing the evidence for your aesthetic procedures further down the road. People who had Botox done are scary - they may have lineless faces but they also have expressionless faces. It puts me off to have to speak face-to-face with them. Only the mouth moves but the rest of the face remains with the same expression. It spooks me out (like talking to a zombie).

We stress out over each and every line on our face when we look in the mirror but in actual fact, when people look at us, they look at the whole body and how we interact with them (personality, body language, etc) so we have to concentrate on the whole "package".

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 4:45 pm

angel06 wrote:

So, what do you guys think of MLAB skin care products? I just started using it and now I'm kind of scared that it could damage my skin. I know it has a lot of peptides in it.

Angel, we are not talking about peptides in general...just copper peptides.

Mon May 03, 2010 5:12 pm

mb935 wrote:

I just skimmed the posts from the last few days. It figures I just bought Skin Signals!!

I think it was Bethany who said if it seems to work to keep using it... I used Copper Peptides years ago and saw no change.

I do have a lot of gadgets and products. BUT for hte most part I use one or 2 things here and there. I dont have the skin care regimens that most of you guys seem to have.

SOOO... then is it likely that when you think your CPs are working - it really is the other topicals, devices, etc?

And are you guys more or less saying that this guy is a liar? I mean that pisses me off. Should he not have to be responsible for that?

I don't think Pickart is a liar at all. He may be a little overzealous and protective towards his lifetime work on Copper Peptides.

One could almost compare Pickart to another dedicated scientist, Linus Pauling, who in his days recommended high doses of Vitamin C for just about every ailment. Pickart now advocates the use of his 2nd Generation Peptides.

I guess the only thing that separates Pauling from Pickart is that Pauling did not financially benefit from peoples' use of Vitamin C but Pickart has a financial interest in the sale of his new Copper Peptides.

Linus Pauling meant well, and he advocated the use of high doses of vitamin C including intravenous use, and he himself took mega doses of it, and he vehemently opposed those who criticized him.

I am sure Pickart means well too when he advocates his peptides, and like Pauling, he vehemently opposes those who criticize him.

Well, we all know how it went for Pauling...even Pauling's own insitute now has revised their daily recommendation. They have admitted that "Dr. Pauling, for whom the Linus Pauling Institute has great respect, based his own recommendations for vitamin C largely on theoretical arguments" (source: Linus Pauling Institure Website)

Well, all the users of the new Copper Peptides don't want to find out years later that Pickart was wrong (many of them may have inadvertently ruined their skin in the hopes of finding the proverbial fountain of youth)

Since we don't have any solid peer reviewed evidence that the second generation of Copper Peptides work on wrinkles, one might conclude that Dr. Pickart's assertion that these new Peptides work could just be based on his own theoretical arguments.

Either that, or Skin Biology needs to present more convincing proof that the Second Generation Peptides actually work instead of citing GHK Cu studies all over their website and then going the 'anecdotal route" when it comes to the 2nd generation peptides.

However, that does not make Pickart a liar. He may be misguided though...and he does have a financial interest in the second generation peptides.

Another thing I would like to add is that Skin Biology products contain more or less proven emollients, hydroxy acids etc which may be the real cause that these products are working for those who claim that these products are working.

They have also added DMAE to their line of products.

Skin Biology also recommends antioxidant supplements, MSM etc, and who knows, these might play a role...

Another thing is, most people who make a commitment to routinely using these products make many other positive changes in their lives (at least I did), and start exercising more often, eating healthy food, getting more sleep etc etc, because they WANT these things to work. Making such positive changes actually works wonders on one's skin!! Placebo effect is an awesome thing, in my opinion

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 5:39 pm

Josee wrote:

I'm very curious about this distinction between "drug" and "cosmetic". Keliu (you don't have to answer this I'm asking out of curiosity so feel free to ignore me!), what makes a difference in your eyes in the issue of cosmetics vs. drugs?

I'm asking because it does seem that most "cosmeceuticals" claim to do exactly what Retin-A does. The only difference is that with Retin-A we actually know it works and we know a little bit more about the mechanisms. So that's why I'm wondering what difference it makes.

In my eyes the difference between a drug and a cosmetic is that with a drug I have some kind of "guarantee" that it will do what it says it will do. If my doctor prescribes me a blood pressure pill, I take it in good faith that it will lower my blood pressure. Drugs have to go through the appropriate testing and government controls. Cosmetics do not. Ok, so there can be problems with drugs (not to mention the side effects) but they are subject to clinical trials etc.

Cosmeceuticals is just a fancy name for cosmetics obviously incorporating the word pharmaceuticals in order to give them more credence. In reality, they are just cosmetics.

Josee, I agree totally in your stance on Skin Biology marketing - but aren't all skin care companies guilty of this in some form. The marketing hype of all cosmetic topicals tells us that Cream X is going to significantly decrease our wrinkles and tighten sagging skin - have these claims been published and peer revewed, probably not. Skin Biology just happens to market their products on a website whilst the huge conglomerates can afford to make their claims in glossy magazines and TV ad campaigns where the lies and spin are much more acceptable.

Nobody has come forward with any scientific documented research or photos of "The Uglies". I still worry that many people suffer from the uglies because they're told that they're going to.

RickR - welcome to the Forum and this discussion! You made some really viable points.

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 7:05 pm

RickR wrote:

Another thing I would like to add is that Skin Biology products contain more or less proven emollients, hydroxy acids etc which may be the real cause that these products are working for those who claim that these products are working.

I do agree with that. I bought the new Lactic Power 10. It is a good product with appropriate pH of the acid, and some good antioxidants in it.

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 8:01 pm

Keliu wrote:

Josee, I agree totally in your stance on Skin Biology marketing - but aren't all skin care companies guilty of this in some form. The marketing hype of all cosmetic topicals tells us that Cream X is going to significantly decrease our wrinkles and tighten sagging skin - have these claims been published and peer revewed, probably not. Skin Biology just happens to market their products on a website whilst the huge conglomerates can afford to make their claims in glossy magazines and TV ad campaigns where the lies and spin are much more acceptable.

I definitely agree with you. Cosmetic companies are not interested in doing research because it doesn't pay off and it doesn't matter!

Think about it... Retin-A is really the only proven thing to "delay" skin aging, wrinkles, etc. It's cheap compared to other creams in the market. However, because there's no marketing (it's not patented so lots of companies produce it so it's not very profitable) most people don't use it. The first thing that people should use and most people have never tried it!

However, how many times we've been compelled to buy XYZ just due to some advertisement with claims?? And this is us, who are skin care junkies and not the average!

So... all companies need to do is grab a couple of people, give them a cream, test 100000 variables and report the ones were there was some effect. If it's not statistically significant, don't say anything. If it's not different from placebo but you find a difference before/after, just don't say that it was the same as placebo, etc, etc.

So yes, most product claims are just scams Laughing

thankfully some work despite that!

I think what bothers me most is that the marketing specifically claims to be based on real research. It criticizes cosmetic companies
for not publishing research on peer-reviewed journals while not having much of their own. And all this while you loudly promote your university degree... it just doesn't sound right.

And to top if off, when you mess with REALLY sick people, like people with HIV or people with radiotherapy burns telling them... "hey use our product, it will help you heal your problem" while there's really no evidence that the product is OK for these very sick people to use, or even that it will help them... then... I think there's something seriously wrong. When you tell people to use your product to remove moles while the standard of care is to be seen by a doctor who will remove it and do biopsy... then there's something quite disturbing. There IS a reason why moles are analyzed.

Now granted big companies (with a lot more exposure) could never get away with these claims. However, the FDA is limited in resources, so small internet companies can basically claim whatever they want... what are the chances the FDA will come upon their site? However, if you go to the FDA website, you'll see they do send warning letters to companies for either doing misleading claims or drug claims.

Sorry for the rant. As a doctor myself (with a rather skeptical nature I must confess), it just frustrates me a lot that people would say things that can put other people's health at risk Sad

I don't think people do it because they're evil or anything, they must not be aware of the consequences of their actions.

free skin care · Mon May 03, 2010 10:31 pm

OK we have to be fair to Dr. Pickart but is Dr. Pickart being fair to the consumers? How about those people whose skin had bad side effects from using the CPs? I think some of the comments he made about them and to them were a bit unfair as well.

Tue May 04, 2010 12:57 am

bethany wrote:

But is Pickart being fair to consumers when he manipulates data in order to sell a product? Nope. .

m1rox wrote:

OK we have to be fair to Dr. Pickart but is Dr. Pickart being fair to the consumers? How about those people whose skin had bad side effects from using the CPs? I think some of the comments he made about them and to them were a bit unfair as well.

Ok Here is how I see it. I personally use Skin Biology's copper peptides and I think they worked for me from day one, and I was lucky not to suffer any uglies. I have been able to fend off wrinkles to some extent, perhaps due to the peptides.

That does not mean it will work for everyone. Nothing - even the most researched medicines work for everyone. There will be people who will tolerate aspirin those that won't.

And then there is the question of what one's expectations are. I am in my 40s. I would like to like I am in my 30s perhaps...but it would be unrealistic for me to expect to look like I am in my early 20s by using ANY PRODUCT.

Although the Peptides seem to be working for me, I am concerned about the lack of definitive studies regarding the new Copper Peptides.

Having said that, Skin Biology does not put a gun to anyone's head. Nor do they send junk emails or post irritating internet pop up ads or late night TV spots making outrageous claims.

I bet many people in our country, including members of this forum (including myself) have purchased (and will continue to purchase) stuff like Goji, Noni, Mangosteen or some exotic type of thing or herbal concoction or capsule(many of them from dubious sources) to cure a number of ailments (both real and imaginary) and to look younger and thinner.

We spend billions of dollars every year on herbal supplements - and these herbal products are the most unregulated products out there. We don't bother questioning the validity of the claims made about these supplements or whether or not the powder in the capsule is ground up grass or the real thing.

Many of us have bought stuff from Kevin Trudeau (self proclaimed ex-con man and convicted felon). If anyone has read his two books, both books are garbage ramblings of material cut and pasted from numerous sources...yet both books became national bestsellers.

Look at Perricone. His sells $500 creams and in just a few years, his company has become a multi million dollar company. He claims to be associated with Yale university, but he was in an unpaid associate position there and he was basically kicked out after he made outrageous claims about inflammation and aging.

Compared to that, Dr Pickart keeps a much lower profile. His company is a small, boutique type of company that does not engage in "in your face" type of media campaigns.

His products are less expensive than most of the other questionable products out there.

And, at least he has the academic credentials and the research experience to make some claims.

In contrast, who is Kevin Trudueau? Why did people flock like sheep to buy his dubious products for years, and then when he was shut down by the authorities, he made another few million by selling his books..... Kevin Trudeau is a convicted credit card felon who has no credentials...

If Pickart's products don't work for you, and if you don't like his claims, stop using the products. Pure and simple.

I think we should discuss the validity of Pickart's claims, but what I am seeing here is personal attacks on his integrity, and now his family is being dragged into this discussion.

I question the research on the second generation Peptides like most of you, but I would trust Pickart more than the Perricones and the Trudeaus or the other pitchers out there who send me junk email and pollute my TV and computer screen.

Just remember...Pickart is a small company selling products thru word of mouth. There is no gun to your head and there are no junk emails and countless TV and internet ads. If his products don't work for you, don't use them.

free skin care · Tue May 04, 2010 2:12 am

Ok so I'm having some fun now. This advertising blurb is from a very preliminary search of April's US Elle magazine:

Kinerase

Targets elastin to firm skin's structure. Only Kinerase Restructure Firming Cream combines clinically proven anti-aging ingredient Kinetin with innovative technologies for a new way to visible strengthen skin's structure. By targeting elastin, this formula goes beyond stimulating collagen production to provide noticeably firmer skin in just 4 weeks.

Kinerase Skincare by Valeant Pharmaceuticals has over twenty years experience in dermatological science.

Neutrogena Clinical

After years of research and 10 new technology patents, Neutrogena introduces Clinical Skin Care - built on the science of boosting skin's collagen production. It's patented ion2complex combines with the activating cream to create a gentle microcurrent that reawakens collagen depleted skin. Instantly skin feels soft and smooth and in 4 weeks, you'll see visibly reduced wrinkles and a firmer, more uplifted look. Activate it today to set beautiful results in motion.

StriVectin

Overnight Facial Resurfacing Serum gently and effectively corrects multiple surface signs of aging while you sleep. Remove dull dry flakes, visibly diminish pores and wrinkles, brighten skin tone, improve luminosity. You rest, let StriVectin to all the work, and wake up to skin that's smooth, soft, perfect! Try new Instant Moisture Repair! Our breakthrough, clinically-proven daily moisturizing treatment.

Clinique

The power to even skin tone with results equal to a leading prescription ingredient. New Clinique Even Better Clinical Dark Spot Corrector. Dermatologist-developed to be safe, comfortable. Yet in clinical trials our serum was comparable to a leading prescription ingredient in creating a more even skin tone. A verified 53% improvement in skin tone........................................... And results are guaranteed.

free skin care · Tue May 04, 2010 8:49 am

Thanks Rick for your *common sense* posts - I appreciate them.

I'm glad we agree it is not fair to bring in a person's family into discussing a product. If I were Dr. Pickart or anyone of that nature I would do my best to AVOID having my family's pictures out there.

free skin care · Tue May 04, 2010 9:01 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogAmT4tH6-g&feature=PlayList&p=78E3404EE7A61056&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=1

Too bad it ends just when the talk really gets interesting.

free skin care · Tue May 04, 2010 9:07 am

Rick~ I also appreciate your posts for the much needed common sense and balance they have brought to this thread. Welcome!

Tue May 04, 2010 9:53 am

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.

I see on Drugstore.com they have Neutrogena Ageless Intensive Firming Moisture spf 20 with Copper Tripeptide in the ingredients.

free skin care · Tue May 04, 2010 10:01 am

Good points, Rick. I think Pickart has made himself/his family particularly vulnerable by being the de facto spokesperson for his line whereas most cosmeceuticals are marketed by faceless corporations.

They all make claims, some of them more outrageous than others. As I said before, most of us are immune to that kind of puffery.

I differentiate Pickart from most of the others because I don't think he is trying to scam us -- he does believe in his products (scientific proof or otherwise). If CPs don't work for you, don't use them, and if they do work, well, then you're anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of CPs!

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.