Leo
Forum Replies Created
-
My experience:
If the pH drops below 9.5-10 the product is not very effective. Best effect if kept at pH 10-11. Just have to be careful with instructions about not getting it into the eye.
I also would like to know the pH of Plexiderm?
-
@Perry I do not follow the party line about HAs since I am skeptical until proof of adequate scientific quality is provided.
I do not believe that topical HAs do anything other than sit on top of the SC and provide and/or accumulate water from either the product itself which contains water or the atmosphere.
This may not be a good thing for healthy skin since it leads to a disruption of an SC barrier integrity. Why disrupt the SC barrier with water? Skin, like hair, needs oil and not water unless the intent is disrupt the natural oil-based barrier.
I have a different idea-to use the HAs to grab water from the atmosphere and have the HAs remove water before it disrupts the barrier-use HAs as a protectant from water-so why would I want to provide water with a HA ingredient that has been saturated with water? Once HAs are saturated with water, they are more harmful than good-unless your intent is to damage the natural barrier.
If you believe that the HAs penetrate the SC barrier and bring with it water, which I do not, and HAs enter the dermis, which I do not, then the HAs would go into the skin fully saturated with water, damage the barrier and produce leaky skin followed by a cascade of water-infused events with water going in and out of the skin affecting permeability.
However, it is my view that HAs only function from outside the skin by grabbing water and not allowing atmospheric water to harm the SC -if not already fully saturated with water.
So- why add water to a HA formulation. It defeats the purpose of its purported activity!
-
@Perry. Does HA mix well with glycerin? What other agents will mix with the HAs that contain no water?
-
@Pharma How do you prevent the white powder from occurring? What is its cause?
-
I am only questioning the efficacy of any topical product that makes claims to affect anti-aging wrinkles. Its hope in a bottle.
Without some form of irritation, as seen with retinoic acid and retinol at the concentration that causes the irritation, I have not seen any topical ingredient have any effect….and I have tested 100s and it is easy to visibly prove with a paired comparison with the vehicle.
I have a graveyard of 100s of ingredients that do not perform….but there are a few that have promise but they cause irritation for the effect.
-
Yes—It is my belief system that the majority of published ingredient studies in the cosmetic literature on wrinkles/facial imperfections are not reproducible or efficacious in real life. The majority of the studies on topical HAs are PR marketing briefs (not rigorous studies) from ingredient companies published in inferior journals that exist to publish inferior studies or perish.
I keep an open mind and put the ingredient of interest to the test and see for myself….I search for my truth….by performing my own pilot clinical studies. If the ingredient is truly active, it should provide a visible effect that is noticeable.
Subjects use the HA product by itself, in a vehicle containing only one or two ingredients max, on one side of the face and only the vehicle on the other side of the face. If the subject and I can see a visible WOW result when comparing the 2 sides (weekly after 8-12 weeks of use), it works. If not, its fake news.
I have the luxury of seeking and finding the truth and not propagating the fake marketing news from others.
50 years ago, clinical studies were not heavily contaminated with fake stats by industry statisticians. Now-Contamination by industry is the norm. My professor at a major university once told me: Numbers do not lie but All Statisticians distort the numbers to show efficacy…which is very easy to do today with the use of the right stats programs.
He also taught me:
1. Seek the truth for myself
2. Keep an open mind
3. Be skeptical
4. Do not quote/spread fake news (verify it in real life yourself)I do not want you to think that I am hard headed or untrustworthy of others. I am a critical thinker and I appreciate well designed and carried out studies that have been shown to be reproduced by other groups of investigators not tied to industry (with stats that I can analyze and verify to be robust).
-
Brushing…I am sorry for not being clear.
-
@MarkBroussard. Mark, I am not here to argue with your beliefs. One day you will realize the truth. The studies that you are sending me on your links have major limitations, are flawed and are not able to be reproduced.
With regards to the 1st link, the investigators used a specialized so-called nano-HA (not the typical HAs that you can purchase) which is not readily available to confirm the results and its a quantum leap to believe that all HAs are alike or will behave similarly. Yes-they did a study to show that their nano product showed some efficacy but do the data and the stats and the results have merit? You have do your own analyses to decide.
The 2nd point is that they did NOT do a double blinded randomized placebo-controlled study or a paired comparison to see if one side of the face performed better than the other. These are weakly designed studies usually done to get a quick answer with gamed stats for a company to market their proprietary product.
The 3rd point is that the article uses gamed statistics to come to their conclusions. By gamed stats, I mean percentages. The use of Percentage reductions are gaming stats that carry very little weight when used in studies with small numbers of subjects. If I improve my wrinkles from a 1mm to a 2 mm depth, I am improving 100% for that 1mm change. Is this really important and does it have any significance? The 1mm change can be at their limits of sensitivity for detection and impacts significance conclusions due to huge standard deviations with large errors. For these stats to be of any significance, you need over 100 people in the study not just 33.
The 4th point is the study was published in an obscure journal that needs articles to publish or perish. If I were a reviewer, I would not have accepted it for publication.
I could go on and on and on.
The study is interesting as a preliminary observation but not very valuable to make generalizations of true HA efficacy.With regards to the 2nd link, it is a review and reviewers can write whatever opinions they want to write and conclude whatever they like to conclude since it is not a study and they may be referencing similar poor studies.
I am not convinced that HAs have any added value (other than marketing) when provided as topical agents beyond that of any moisturizing ingredient since NO validity exists.
It is not me that is providing fake news. There is a huge contamination of science with fake news from studies that are highly lacking in scientific rigor and integrity.
Science is great and science is the ultimate truth but science is highly contaminated with fake science!
Over 95% of the published scientific work is fake news from industry….
In the cosmetic world, marketing rules and scientific truth is even much much and extremely harder to find. Fake news is rampant in the cosmetic world and we are the sheep that believe it! It makes us feel good to believe it so we just accept it without question just like sheep….
-
@jermolian Do you or anyone on this thread have any suggestions for different delivery systems for the anhydrous HAs?
-
Has anyone tried to formulate the HAs in an anhydrous formulation or deliver the HAs in a powder form? Any unique delivery systems been tried?
-
Everyone has good opinions but no one knows for sure if the HAs are doing anything at all when applied to skin as opposed to injections. Are the HAs only soluble in water?
-
HA soaks up water like a sponge.
If HAs would indeed penetrate and have activity, it would soak up water from the dermis resulting in not much difference since the water is already in the dermis that it is soaking up?
Why would the higher MWs form a barrier shield? I would think it would either not do anything if the barrier is intact or pull out and remove water from the skin as it sits on the top of the skin soaking it up from the epidermis/dermis and increasing TEWL?
Please correct me if I am wrong….If the HAs are injected under the skin into the dermis at much high concentrations, then you get the visible effects that last for a few months or longer.
-
@PhilGeis A few people had mild transient redness including myself. I am still searching for the 1st major complain (1% adverse event was an expected assumption).
The product is in field testing by medical dermatologists and is expected to be marketed next year. No controlled clinical study is needed since the product has immediate effects that can be visualized by the user and the dermatologist.
A controlled clinical study is not needed to determine if a forceful punch on the face will produce an immediate visible injury that is effective at reducing the wrinkles around the eyes (irritation and swelling)-this is a fun statement but also the truth-I can vouch for it as being a very effective anti-wrinkle method that lasts for days.
The main active is the silicate ingredient in combination with another unique ingredient that expands its activity 10x without adding harm.
The most important factor is the immediate WOW sensorial effect vanishing the wrinkles within minutes.
No placebo/nocebo ingredients with elegant language promising hope in a bottle.
-
@Pharma In short, are you saying that I should try the other ILs if the formate fails? I do not want to use heat since it will inactivate the plant proteins of interest. With regards to pressure, what methods do you recommend?
-
@Pharma thanks for the input on the malate. I will keep you posted once I try the formate to see if it solubilizes the fruit powder. If not successful, none of these other ionic liquids will probably work.
-
@ Ketchito and @PhilGeis.
There are NO cosmetic ingredients that have a functional effect on wrinkles for which a truthful anti-wrinkle claim can be made! Claims associated with cosmetic anti-wrinkle ingredients are marketing exaggerations/artful language with no proven functional effects in real life against wrinkles.
To my knowledge, Retin A is the only ingredient with an FDA anti-wrinkle claim-please correct me if I am wrong. The professors in the 1980s in Dermatology were fantastic (Kligman and VanScott and others) and always made mention that without some level of irritation (peeling, redness, etc.), wrinkles will not functionally improve. The anti-wrinkle effects with Retin A are directly proportional to its ability to irritate skin over time. A reduction in the dosage or the formulation of the Retin A to make it less irritating (a cosmetic function), dramatically abolished its ability to visibly affect wrinkles.
The best that we as cosmetic formulators can hope for with effective anti-wrinkle products is to temporarily mask the wrinkle in some unique way. The sodium silicate (liquid glass) ingredient in association with clay/mineral ingredients can perform this function and has an optimum effect in tightening/masking the wrinkle on skin at pH of 11 (personal observation). There are a number of products in the market with this ingredient at a pH of 9-11(Plexaderm, etc.). The skin can get temporarily red and mildly irritated in some patients (including myself) but the effects on hiding the wrinkles are fantastic. I have tested 100s of patients with a specific formulation containing the silicate -none had severe irritation of the skin that required acute or chronic care for a burn or ulceration of the skin.
The safety of this product has been determined-
Do not apply the product to irritated skin.
Do not apply with other products.
The product may produce a mild irritation/redness of the skin and (like some soaps on the market) can cause eye irritation if it makes contact with the eyes. -
Chlorox bleach is neutralized to a much lower pH than 12.
Household Bleach is usually at pH 11-13 depending on use.Common soaps have a pH of between 9-11 and have routine warnings to keep out of eyes and what to do if soap gets in your eyes.
The pH 11 gel will be used near the eye but it rapidly dries upon skin contact (within one minute). It may, in some, produce an intended mild irritation and mild redness of the skin that resolves after a few minutes. Once dried upon contact with skin, it cannot harm the eye.
Soap will do more harm to the eye since it is lathered and foamy and people tend to spread soap into their eyes during application. The key is to NOT get the gel in the eye during application with your fingers (which you have much more control than with soap).
Instructions: Apply to crows feet and under the eyes. Keep out of eyes. Do not apply to eyelids. Keep each eye closed until product is fully dried! Do not apply with other products.
Additional instructions will be provided if the gel gets in the eyes (rinse immediately with water and seek medical attention if eye irritation develops, etc.). Instructions will also be provided to address if irritation of skin is severe or persists.
One has to take risks if one wants to use a product that performs and provides effects on eye wrinkles!
If the product does not produce some form of harmful effect, it will not affect wrinkles….and will only be another marketing BS story….
The goal is to help 99% and expect that there will be a vocal 1% that will complain.
The media focus will always be on the vocal 1% and is the reason our society is becoming non-functional…like cosmetics in general.
Covid as a prime example! We are planning to vaccinate our entire population to preserve the 1% that are expected to die…. -
@PhilGeis What plastic or other packaging materials hold up at pH 10-12 over time?
The product at pH 10 is a liquid soap and the product at pH 11 is an anti-wrinkle gel.
-
@PhilGeis Sir-the packaging for the liquid soap (pH 10) is a plastic container with a foam pump.
Is a micro challenge recommended and definitive?
Which preservative(s) would you use?
In your experience, regarding a different product, have you heard of microbes contaminating a gel at pH 11?
-
I will try with one of these agents to see if it works. If it does not work, I do not think trying the others will be fruitful…just a pun with the use of fruitful.
-
A key issue related to this invitro study is the same key issue that applies to all ingredients that are tested in vitro—-as per the authors, “if this inhibition is confirmed in vivo.”
Even if confirmed in vivo and given that over 99.99% of in vitro ingredient claims are NOT confirmed in vivo, you are NOT legally able to use any hair claims that are associated with growth or functional hair loss unless the FDA approves.
Please also note that the authors published this work over 30 years ago and they make NO reference to hair.
I am not saying that the information is incorrect but why proceed with this venture.
-
@biofirm thanks but I ordered your first IL. @pharma what is your experience using the DMEA lactate?
-
What is used to dilute the ionic liquid?
-
Is there a concentration of the ionic ingredient that is best to try?
-
What concentration of the ionic ingredient is optimum for use to dissolve the cellulosic fruit powder?