How advanced is Amatokin? Amatokin ($173 for 1 ounce) is marketed by Voss Laboratories, another umbrella company that is headed by Klein-Becker, which markets StriVectin-SD, Hylexin, and Idebenol, all products that use questionable marketing tactics to make their formulas sound like miracles (the FDA has been trying with little success to curtail their advertising). The only miracle about these products is the number of women who buy into the hype, a response that only encourages other companies to continue their own misleading advertising campaigns. After all, if StriVectin-SD is the anti-wrinkle breakthrough of the decade that is supposed to replace Botox (that’s how Klein-Becker advertises their product), how do they explain away the claim that Amatokin is “the most profound advancement in the skin-care sciences in more than three decades”? Clearly they hope you won’t notice that these two companies are distorting the same information in several different products. The attention-getting concept with this product is the use of stem cells. Amatokin is supposed to enhance the expression of stem cells in the skin, which the company claims will reduce deep and superficial wrinkles and discolorations from sun damage. The problem is that there is no published, independent research to prove that claim. Here’s how Amatokin explains their formula: “Skin is the largest reservoir of stem cells in the human body. Amatokin is the first and only topical compound shown to highlight the expression of stem cell markers in skin.… Amatokin’s functional isolates have been clinically shown to dramatically reduce the appearance of both deep and superficial wrinkles, as well as skin coloration associated with photo-aging.” Give me a break! The ingredient list is incredibly ordinary. The name Amatokin is the trade name for the polpypeptide 153 ingredient in the product which the company claims is THE ingredient that makes Amatokin special. Yet, since Amatokin is almost entirely wax and water, it isn’t even as nicely formulated as StriVectin is, so the ad copy is really smoke and mirrors. The phrase “highlights expression of stem cell markers in skin” has no meaning. What does highlighting mean anyway? The ad copy is so vague that it nicely gets around any risk of FDA attention because there is no medical or structural change in the body termed “highlighting.” “Functional isolates” also has no meaning. What isolates are they referring to? Isolates can refer to any number of substances—they’re not a specific group of ingredients. So the claim just alludes to the product’s effects on stem cells without actually saying that it does or contains anything that can affect them. What is even more absurd about this claim is that stem cell research is in its infancy, when in terms of wrinkles and skin care for humans, it is nonexistent (Klein Becker itself doesn’t have even one published study). This is a classic example of how a cosmetics company can take serious science and manipulate it to sell products. Scientific literature is clear that stem cells are indeed the basis for every organ, tissue, and cell produced in the human body, and it is possible that stem cells may be able to repair or replace damaged tissue, thereby reversing diseases and injuries such as cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and blood diseases, to name a few. But notice the wording, may be. We just don’t know, and neither does Amatokin. Research on adult stem cells, as well as on embryonic stem cells (though the latter is far more controversial) holds great potential. In fact, adult blood-forming stem cells from bone marrow have been used in bone marrow transplants for over 30 years. Certain kinds of adult stem cells seem to have the ability to differentiate into a number of different cell types, given the right conditions. If this differentiation of adult stem cells can be controlled in the laboratory, these cells may become the basis for therapies for many serious common diseases, and they could solve the important problem of immune rejection. Scientists are experimenting with different research strategies to generate tissues that will not be rejected. Many complicated questions remain to be answered about stem cells. The following are a few I learned from www.wikipedia.com, the National Institutes of Health (www.nih.gov), and other Web sites on stem cell research. “How many kinds of adult stem cells exist, and in which tissues do they exist? What are the sources of adult stem cells in the body? Are they ‘leftover’ embryonic stem cells, or do they arise in some other way? Why do they remain in an undifferentiated state when all the cells around them have differentiated? Do adult stem cells normally exhibit plasticity, or do they only transdifferentiate when scientists manipulate them experimentally? What are the signals that regulate the proliferation and differentiation of stem cells that demonstrate plasticity? Is it possible to manipulate adult stem cells to enhance their proliferation so that sufficient tissue for transplants can be produced? Does a single type of stem cell exist—possibly in the bone marrow or circulating in the blood—that can generate the cells of any organ or tissue? What are the factors that stimulate stem cells to relocate to sites of injury or damage?” As you can see, there are far more questions than answers, and the answers certainly aren’t found in this $173 cosmetic product sold by a company known for its deceptive advertising. 
 ELIZABETH ARDEN Intervene 3-in-1 Daily Cleanser Exfoliator Primer ($20 for 5 ounces) sports a name that sounds like a time-saver if there ever was one. However, the only truth in the name is the “cleanser” part, as that’s essentially all this pricey product is. The tiny amount of polyethylene beads included creates a mild exfoliating action, but it’s not akin to the results from using a standard facial scrub, or even a washcloth for that matter. Still, it’s a well-formulated cleanser for normal to slightly dry or slightly oily skin, and it removes makeup easily while rinsing cleanly. However, keep in mind that there are countless water-soluble cleansers for a fraction of the price that leave skin feeling just like this product does. Find it! LANCOME High Resolution Eye with Collaser-48, Deep Collagen Anti-Wrinkle Eye Serum ($56 for 0.5 ounce) makes much ado about the fact that it is the only Lancome eye treatment that can “accelerate the production of collagen in just 48 hours.” This begs the question of why Lancome would keep selling its myriad other eye-area products if they don’t work as well. After all, if this one works so expediently to push up and plump wrinkles, why bother with anything else? But Lancome doesn’t have to worry, because there’s nothing special or unique in this product to put their other options to shame. This ends up being a decent, though mundane, water- and silicone-based serum that contains a lot of film-forming agents. It also includes titanium dioxide and mica to make the under-eye area look brighter and shimmery. In fact, these pigments make up a much larger part of the formula than the caffeine and other ingredients Lancome claims are responsible for this product’s ability to diminish dark circles and puffiness. Without question this serum-type moisturizer will smooth the appearance of wrinkles, but on dry skin it will look just like any other moisturizer. Accelerating the production of collagen is an easy claim for any moisturizer because skin that isn’t dry or irritated does make collagen, so this and lots of other moisturizers would net the same result, depending on how you made the measurements or controlled the testing. And the Collaser part of this product, which is there to make you think this is replacing laser resurfacing that you’d get at a doctor’s office—well, just to reassure you, it doesn’t. TRACIE MARTYN Firming Serum ($185 for 1 ounce) has a price tag that may make you believe it really can restore the skin’s youth and resilience, but the ingredient list isn’t exactly accurate, at least in terms of how the individual ingredients are listed. The main ingredients are water, aloe, glycerin epidermal growth factor, and serum protein (a mislabeling that doesn’t reveal the source of the protein, so who knows where it comes from). A few antioxidants and soothing agents are also in the formula, but they may be all for naught due to the “blend of natural essential oils.” The oils aren’t listed individually (another problem, and a violation of the FDA’s Cosmetic Labeling guidelines), so once again, you have no idea what you’re putting on your skin. The concern I have with this product is the use of epidermal growth factor (EGF) (if it really is in here). It can have anti-inflammatory properties when applied to skin (Source: Skin Pharmacology and Applied Skin Physiology, January–April 1999, pages 79–84), but it can also promote tumor growth (Source: Journal of Surgical Research, April 2002, pages 175–182). In short, the presence of EGF is not something to be taken lightly, and I’d be cautious about products that contain it until we know more about how it functions when applied topically on skin. Much is known and more is being learned about EGF’s role in wound healing, but that complex physiological process is not at all related to the way wrinkles form.One more ingredient to call out on this product is antoxyflavin. Attempts to find out what antoxyflavin is proved fruitless, as it is tied only to this Tracie Martyn product. I suspect it is a trade name of some sort. As Martyn’s ingredient list isn’t accurate by FDA standards, the consumer can only wonder what they may be putting on their skin. Between the EGF, mystery essential oils, and other unknown ingredients, as well as the eyebrow-raising price, this is a product I do not recommend. 
Dear Paula, I have rosacea with dry flaky skin, though my skin used to be quite oily. With cold winter weather here in full force, I recently started experimenting with different foundations to try and find one that would moisturize and protect my skin from the cold and wind (which exacerbate my rosacea). I tried Bobbi Brown's Moisturizing Foundation, but found that after using it for a short while my skin became more red and flaky. Obviously there is something in the makeup or sunscreen ingredients that aggravates my rosacea. One woman at the cosmetics counter told me anything with oil in it could make the condition worse. Are you aware if oils make rosacea worse? If so, what suggestions do you have for fighting dryness? Are there any particular sunscreens, moisturizers, or foundations you might suggest? Thanks so much for any suggestions you might have. I've been reading your books (and diligently following your advice) for years. With all the products on the market, and the myriad claims, I appreciate having a voice of reason to help guide me to the best products. Susan, via e-mail Dear Susan, There is nothing specific about oils (other than fragrant oils) that makes them problematic for someone with rosacea. Several factors can make rosacea worse but these are not the same for everyone, as many people have different reactions to the same ingredient or external elements. Typically rosacea is exacerbated by hot liquids, spicy foods, exposure to extreme temperatures (including cooking over a hot stove), alcohol consumption, sunlight, stress, saunas, hot tubs, smoking, rubbing or massaging the skin, irritating cosmetics, and anything else that overstimulates the skin and blood vessels. Rosacea symptoms can also be made worse by AHAs, Retin-A, Renova, Differin, and exfoliants of any kind, including scrubs and washcloths. In terms of skin care there is no absolute rule, but generally eliminating the use of irritating ingredients such as peppermint, alcohol, fragrance, citrus, eucalyptus, and the like will help. Plus, the fewer products you use, and the fewer the ingredients in each, the happier rosacea-afflicted skin is going to be. The bottom line is that if you have rosacea (or any skin sensitivity) it takes experimentation to find products that work for you.
|
