I wanted to buy a product with R-ALA that is mixed with these phopholipids. I read up on them on a chemistry website, but I'm still not sure if they are a good idea for my skin. The other option is to buy the R-ALA mixed with an Ultra Emu Oil. Which of these would make the R-ALA more available to my skin? Are phospholipids good/bad for the skin barrier?

From Dr. Pickart

This tread seems to have gone badly off track. We have removed many posts and edited others in the interest of increasing greater serenity, reflection, and calmness. We tried to be fair in the removal of certain posts and tried to keep in the good comments.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dr. Pickart,

ALA in Emu Oil would be better.

Phospholipids are biological detergents and will tend to open up the protective skin barrier.

quote:

Originally posted by KathyC:
Actually, I hate to say this, but it's really the same with the 2nd generation copper peptides for skin remodeling. Can you show me three independent sources that prove 2nd generation CPs are an active useful for facial skin? I use 2nd generation CPs as well, as you know. I'm not saying I don't believe in them.

Kathy

There were four published studies on the second generation SRCPs by Howard Maibach.

Lipotec (www.lipotec.com) sent me information - not yet on the websites - that the mixture of soy peptides that we use in the
2nd generation SRCPs increase the production of collagen 3 - the youthful type of collagen.

At age 5, 90% of our skin collagen is collagen 3 but by age 50 this drops to less than 10%. Lipotec sells a product in Europe that is used in cosmetics with such peptides and GHK called Aldenine. They also found GHK blocked UV induced cell damage and death of skin keratinocytes (with photos). We plan to get this in the website in about three weeks.

The studies that I cited demonstrate the second generation SRCPs work on humans in outside studies.

Keep in context that I filed two patent applications on cosmetic applications of GHK-copper in 1989. All the claims that I made on cosmetic actions of GHK-copper in 1989 were later verified in the 2005 paper from Neutrogena and UCSF. This was 15 years later.

See
US Patent 5,348,943 Cosmetic and skin treatment compositions.
US 5,135,913 Skin treatment composition comprises GHL-CU or derivatives for improving skin health, increasing subcutaneous fat, dermal thickness and density.

and

Copper Peptide and Skin, M.B. Finkley, Y. Appa, S. Bhandarkar, Cosmeceuticals and Active Cosmetic, 2nd Edition (ISBN: 0-8247-4239-7), 2005, pp 549-563

It is easy to be a critic and sit on the sidelines of life throwing rocks at anyone who is doing anything difficult. It is immensely more difficult to make discoveries and predict actions that are later confirmed by others. So far, I have not been wrong in a prediction of what the SRCPs would do from my patent applications to later published studies.

Science is more thinking than experimenting when you understand the topic in depth. I work off the Skin Renewal Cycle that I developed from my work (see second figure in www.skinbiology.com/copperpeptideregeneration.html). Darwin developed the theory of evolution by observation. Einstein just thought about physics.

If you will fund the studies that you want (cost about $4 million dollars), I will happily set up the studies.

Yup, You'll find experimental and human studies, the ultrasound measurements, and digital images about GHK-Cu and photodamaged skin in Chapter 32 "Cosmeceuticals and Active Cosmetic," 2nd Edition, ISBN: 0-8247-4239-7.

You'll out who isolated the tripeptide GHK.

I looked up www.lipotec.com and read about Aldenine.

I also spent over a year reading, reviewing, and checking the information provided at skinbiology.com (not out of devotion for Skin Biology) and substantiated some of the references and citations made. And yes the majority of the references are not about second generation copper peptides specifically and there only four limited human studies. However, there are many ways to judge a skincare product and a company other than clinical studies. Once one understands the basic science behind the 1st and 2nd generation copper peptides, the proposed skin renewal approaches, checked out the facts from indpendent sources, and read the company mission, it's not too difficult to make inferences about someone's inventions, credibility, integrity, or expertise. Even with four small scale human studies, the EVIDENCE (science, credibility, possibility, and integrity behind the product) is nevertheless there.

The science and reason, in whatever form, will have to exist for topical ALA.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JW,

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pickart:
The studies that I cited demonstrate the second generation SRCPs work on humans in outside studies.

Keep in context that I filed two patent applications on cosmetic applications of GHK-copper in 1989. All the claims that I made on cosmetic actions of GHK-copper in 1989 were later verified in the 2005 paper from Neutrogena and UCSF. This was 15 years later.

See
US Patent 5,348,943 Cosmetic and skin treatment compositions.
US 5,135,913 Skin treatment composition comprises GHL-CU or derivatives for improving skin health, increasing subcutaneous fat, dermal thickness and density.

and

Copper Peptide and Skin, M.B. Finkley, Y. Appa, S. Bhandarkar, Cosmeceuticals and Active Cosmetic, 2nd Edition (ISBN: 0-8247-4239-7), 2005, pp 549-563

It is easy to be a critic and sit on the sidelines of life throwing rocks at anyone who is doing anything difficult. It is immensely more difficult to make discoveries and predict actions that are later confirmed by others. So far, I have not been wrong in a prediction of what the SRCPs would do from my patent applications to later published studies.

Science is more thinking than experimenting when you understand the topic in depth. I work off the Skin Renewal Cycle that I developed from my work (see second figure in www.skinbiology.com/copperpeptideregeneration.html). Darwin developed the theory of evolution by observation. Einstein just thought about physics.

If you will fund the studies that you want (cost about $4 million dollars), I will happily set up the studies.

This is where you misunderstand me. I am not throwing rocks! I absolutely respect your work. I am only saying that it is not fair to demand studies on other actives when you don't have them on your own. That's all!

Kathy

As a matter of interest:

From: http://nutraceuticalsworld.com/articles/2006/09/antiagi...s-and-what-doesn.php

"Alpha Lipoic Acid
Claims/Benefits: Powerful anti-inflammatory agent that also protects cells from free radical damage, improves collagen production, reduces the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles.

Research: Research does support the notion that alpha lipoic acid is a potent antioxidant with anti-inflammatory properties. In a double-blind, randomized clinical trial on 33 women aged 40-75, each subject treated half of their face twice daily with a cream containing 5% alpha lipoic acid and the other half of their face with an identical placebo cream without alpha lipoic acid for 12 weeks. The effectiveness of alpha lipoic acid was determined through self-evaluation by test subjects, clinical evaluation and photographic evaluation using laser profilometry.

All methods of assessment revealed statistically significant improvement in the alpha lipoic acid-treated side of the face in comparison to placebo, indicating that alpha lipoic acid is beneficial for the treatment of photo aging. More specifically, laser profilometry revealed an average decrease in skin roughness of 51%, compared to 41% on the untreated side6.

So if alpha lipoic acid can help treat already photo-damaged skin, can it prevent photo-damage in the first place? If a study using weanling Yorkshire pigs is any indication, the answer is no. In this experiment, a 5% alpha lipoic acid solution dissolved in 50% ethanol was compared to two commercial preparations, a 1% vitamin E + 15% vitamin C solution and an alpha lipoic acid formulation. All three were applied to different areas of shaved back skin and a 1000-W solar simulator was then used to induce UV radiation. Erythema was then measured. While the vitamin E+C commercial preparation provided significant protection, neither alpha lipoic acid product provided any benefit7.

6. Beitner H. Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study on the clinical efficacy of a cream containing 5% alpha-lipoic acid related to photoaging of facial skin. Brit J Derm 2003;149:841-849.

7.Lin JY et al. Alpha-lipoic acid is ineffective as a topical antioxidant for photoprotection of skin. J Invest Dermatol. 2004;123(5):996-8."

I didn't realize the study you quoted was one done on the shaved backs of weanling Yorkshire pigs!

Kathy

quote:

Originally posted by KathyC:
But, even if I had been unable to do so, why is the 20 years of clinical work done by Perricone with ALA and DMAE any less scientifically credible that that of Dr. Pickart? Perricone has many patents. There are thousands of patient case studies Perricone can present from his long practice demonstrating significant skin improvements. He also has biochemical models of action and pretty diagrams (just like Dr. Pickart) in his 5 published books. Perricone even supports GHK-Cu as a topical and Dr. Pickart supports the science of ALA on his website recommending both topical and internal use.

Edited by Dr. Pickart

Perricone has a lot of ideas but the standard of science is published comfirmation by other researchers in peer-reviewed journals. He needs to publish his studies in dermatology journals not the newspapers. He still needs to prove that "The Wrinkle Cure" removes wrinkles.

As for books on skin, there are any number of aging actresses and models who have best selling books on skin care.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dr. Pickart,

quote:

Originally posted by KathyC:

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pickart:
The studies that I cited demonstrate the second generation SRCPs work on humans in outside studies.

Keep in context that I filed two patent applications on cosmetic applications of GHK-copper in 1989. All the claims that I made on cosmetic actions of GHK-copper in 1989 were later verified in the 2005 paper from Neutrogena and UCSF. This was 15 years later.

See
US Patent 5,348,943 Cosmetic and skin treatment compositions.
US 5,135,913 Skin treatment composition comprises GHL-CU or derivatives for improving skin health, increasing subcutaneous fat, dermal thickness and density.

and

Copper Peptide and Skin, M.B. Finkley, Y. Appa, S. Bhandarkar, Cosmeceuticals and Active Cosmetic, 2nd Edition (ISBN: 0-8247-4239-7), 2005, pp 549-563

It is easy to be a critic and sit on the sidelines of life throwing rocks at anyone who is doing anything difficult. It is immensely more difficult to make discoveries and predict actions that are later confirmed by others. So far, I have not been wrong in a prediction of what the SRCPs would do from my patent applications to later published studies.

Science is more thinking than experimenting when you understand the topic in depth. I work off the Skin Renewal Cycle that I developed from my work (see second figure in www.skinbiology.com/copperpeptideregeneration.html). Darwin developed the theory of evolution by observation. Einstein just thought about physics.

If you will fund the studies that you want (cost about $4 million dollars), I will happily set up the studies.

This is where you misunderstand me. I am not throwing rocks! I absolutely respect your work. I am only saying that it is not fair to demand studies on other actives when you don't have them on your own. That's all!

Kathy

All the studies on GHK-copper are MY active. There is not another skin product with more positive and documented actions with regard to skin. Not just wrinkles, firmness, etc, but also angiogenesis, nerve outgrowth, suppression of TGF-beta-1 (the scar forming protein), suppression of TNF-alpha (may cause psoriasis), protection against UV damage to keratinocytes, and so on. (A tripeptide in human plasma that increases the survival of hepatocytes and the growth of hepatoma cells,. Pickart Ph.D. Thesis in Biochemistry, University of California, San Francisco, 1973)

So I expect others to provide some serious evidence that that products that they developed have some underlying basis for their use. Or demonstrate some level of proven competence in developing EFFECTIVE skin and hair products.

I consider all GHK-copper products as MY products regardless of who sells them. When the new GHK arrives at Skin Biology, we will sell a strong version of GHK-copper.

Skin Biology is a research company still primarily working on wound healing and scar reduction. To date, all methods of clinical wound healing have failed to find a fast and effective method of healing wounds despite billions being spent on different approaches.

Scar reduction is also in the same mess. Even marginal scar therapies take at least 6 months to show an improvement.

We are primarily working on improved methods of skin repair and filing patent applications at this time. But for human studies on cosmetic skin improvements, at this time, I would not know what product to test. The Skin Biology Forum, along with user comments to our office, is something of a large informal clinical study that is slowly defining the products that would be most effective and safe.

Kathy,

By the way, if you prefer Dr. Pickart's first generation copper peptides, which he said had stability problems and I'm going to ask him about when I get my acts together, because most of the studies are on GHK, you may be mistaken.

For someone who is willing to experiment with other actives without all the evidence in place, is it really that difficult for you to consider the possibility that the person who invented and knew all the problems there is to know about the first generation copper peptides and who has in-depth expertise in copper peptides, can't come up with a new and improved version of copper peptides with or without all the evidence in place (you don't seem to be too picky with other actives)?

Personally, I would prefer to use Dr. Pickart's 1st generation CPs because I understand them to be effective for my own needs, which would be cosmetic facial skin remodelling as opposed to wound repair, as I have no scarring to deal with (where the 2nd generation CPs apparently come in to play). I do not doubt the effectivenes of either CP product in their own right. My personal position is, that I would prefer to use GHK-Cu whether the studies are in place or not (and they are). We do not have access to the GHK-Cu in an effective concentration. I wish we did. I am hopeful that we will in the future. That doesn't take away from the 2nd generation which have their own place, and whether the studies are in place or not (which they are not because as Dr. Pickart says, he needs $4,000,000 to make that happen) I have faith in their effectiveness too for what they are designed to do. I have removed moles and age spots with them. I put them on my face daily too, and will continue to in the hopes that I get some long term benefits from their use (all the while waiting for GHK-Cu). I would likely not have a need for 2nd gen CPs if the 1st gen CPs were available in an effective concentration.

I do not need all of the evidence in place to use any actives. What I do need is to see fairness applied to the effectiveness of all actives, and the studies behind them, whether they be CPs, Vit C, ALA, etc. Clearly, I use them as I am confident enough in the science behind each of them!

Kathy

quote:

Originally posted by JW:
You are not confusing us with your PMs from your forum, are you?

No, I don't have a forum

quote:

Originally posted by JW:
Okay, we got a dilemma. In order to honor and practice Fairness and Truth and no double-standard standard in this forum, we can’t ask for scientific evidence or discuss science because there are no studies done on SRCPs and because our devotions to Skin Biology make all our expressed views biased and not evidence-based.

I guess I can’t post without being biased because of my devotion to Skin Biology and Dr. Pickart can’t post his biased views because of his devotion to Skin Biology. Dr. Pickart and I will have to discuss science privately because we are both devoted to Skin Biology, biased, and untruthful so this forum will have fairness and truth. I guess I will have to private messaging Dr. Pickart about my science questions about GHK-Cu and other science questions.

Remember the standard of truth is we cannot discuss or ask for science in this forum from now on because there are no studies done on SRCPs.

That is not what I was saying and I believe you know that. I was saying that all should be fair. Period.

Errr...yeah. Ok, then. Well, I bought the R-ALA version in Ultra Emu Oil. I'll let everyone know how it works for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Bagheera:
Errr...yeah. Ok, then. Well, I bought the R-ALA version in Ultra Emu Oil. I'll let everyone know how it works for me.

LOL Bagheera. Thank you for bringing things around to what we should be discussing here!

Can you please let me know where you found R-ALA with Ultra Emu Oil? I am using R-ALA with Squalane but would like to look at the emu product. Thanks.

Kathy

I bought my R-ALA from Garden of Wisdom (found online at http://www.gardenofwisdom.com/) They have 2 kinds as I mentioned -- the one in liposomes and the one in ultra emu oil. I'm excited to try it as my new, regular moisturizer. It's said to be lighter than regular emu oil (which I do love, but it's a bit heavy for daytime use), plus it's got the R-ALA which I want to try. Quite possibly a win-win situation.

I noticed this thread last night right before I went to sleep.

Boy, I had a lousy nights sleep <yawn>

You ladies both contribute so much to this forum, but keep in mind it's not global warming we're talking about, or pro life/pro choice. Not to say skin care isn't important, obviously it is or we wouldn't be here, and no disrespect to Dr. P who has puts so much of himself into this area of research for the benefit of others. But we're talking about skin cream & it's nothing to get this worked up about. Talk, but be more relaxed.

Taking care of eachother is the only thing that really matters on this board and in this world. In the end, everything else is nonsense. Good feelings matter most.

You guys know this stuff already.

Sorry about the bad nights sleep, DeeDee. Your redirected focus will help me. When I couldn't get rid of my double vision last night, I knew it was time to go to sleep. My poor head struggled to reason and exercise the stated requirements and standards for consistency, fairness, and truth endorsed with epithets and THEN the denials of the applications of such guided requirements as characteristic blatant misrepresentations proven by historical and personal observation embossed with additional epithets and unique expectations and demands while reconciling the incongruency of the derived consistency requirements perceived to be fair and practical but with no practical observation or significance or legitimate outcome other than the inability to discuss any technical facts about a non-SRCPs active (or any) without any imposed non-technical discussion about consistency and faireness requirements or standards without scientific relevance or significance to evaluate an active based on the available reports or studies for one universal active, the SRCPs.

My body is also giving me clear strong signals to stop and purge all prescribed untruth truth and intended hostility and standards devoid of reason and content.

quote:

Originally posted by JW:
When I couldn't get rid of my double vision last night, I knew it was time to go to sleep. My poor head struggled to reason and exercise the stated requirements and standards for consistency, fairness, and truth endorsed with epithets and THEN the denials of the applications of such guided requirements as characteristic blatant misrepresentations proven by historical and personal observation embossed with additional epithets and unique expectations and demands while reconciling the incongruency of the derived consistency requirements perceived to be fair and practical but with no practical observation or significance or legitimate outcome other than the inability to discuss any technical facts about a non-SRCPs active (or any) without any imposed non-technical discussion about consistency and faireness requirements or standards without scientific relevance or significance to evaluate an active based on the available reports or studies for one universal active, the SRCPs.

Talk about struggling to reason! There are 126 words in that sentence!

Why can't you just ever give it a rest like Dave so appropriately suggested?

quote:

Originally posted by Bagheera:
I bought my R-ALA from Garden of Wisdom (found online at http://www.gardenofwisdom.com/) They have 2 kinds as I mentioned -- the one in liposomes and the one in ultra emu oil. I'm excited to try it as my new, regular moisturizer. It's said to be lighter than regular emu oil (which I do love, but it's a bit heavy for daytime use), plus it's got the R-ALA which I want to try. Quite possibly a win-win situation.

I will be anxious to hear how you like it. As mentioned, I am using the R-ALA with squalane from Pure Skin Formulations (http://www.psfskincare.com/alacomplex.htm).

My thought was that the ultra emu (although it does absorb very nicely on its own) might be too heavy for daytime use, but perhaps not? Please report back once you've had an opportunity to try it.

Kathy