Quote:
Originally Posted by TamEva Le Fay
With respect – It seems, it is important for you to know, that while, even though, I work for a Dermatologist, I do not work for, nor am I affiliated with Dr. Nicholas Perricone M.D. I have met Dr. Perricone, briefly, here in San Francisco at the Dermatological Convention while attending his seminars.
I can assure you I’m am no more interested in advising anyone to throw away their hard earned money, as I am in giving anyone bad advice! But to go so far as to call someone a “Quack” is pretty strong stuff.
|
I didn't take issue with you, I took issue with the idea that everything Perricone was saying is worth rushing out for and buying immediately. I couldn't care less about where you work or for whom you work.
As for calling Perricone a quack, I still stand by the remark, and not just because of Quackwatch, which I find to be in infinitely resourceful site because it seeks to educate us to make better decisions about our health and our wealth. At no point has the site - or myself - advocated book burning, for goodness sake. I do advocate a healthy dose of skepticism before looking for "cures" from the beauty industry.
If a doctor is selling products on the basis of "scientific research", which he or she says they have completed, I should at the very least be able to find their research on PubMed searches. I should be able to corroborate their evidence with simple searches on PubMed. Very often, I can do neither with Perricone.
That's bad science, the very essence of quackery. Perricone can't have it both ways, in my opinion. He can't on the one hand say "this is just for your information" and then stand on his medical laurels as though he is an expert, and offer you beauty creams and medical advice. It's disingenuous.
I felt others in this thread should know about the possibility that they could be wasting their money on his products and books. If that bothers you, then perhaps you should examine why you are so keen to defend him. After all, you were advocating consumer education. What's so bad about highlighting the other side of the coin - the fact that maybe the products aren't all they're hyped up to be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamEva Le Fay
Especially, if you are basing it off a website called “Quackwatch”! I, usually, take a little pride in my appreciation for semantics. And based on the information you provided from, both, Dr.’s Harriet Hall & Stephen Barrett, I am left with the impression of a very bad case of sour grapes…I suppose? It, also, seems I’m not the only one who has a few questions for Dr. Barrett. Ahhhhh Bless ‘em!
|
Do a bit more research and perhaps you'll get some answers as to who Dr Barrett is, and what Quackwatch is about. There are plenty of information links on the site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamEva Le Fay
I do credit him for bringing to my awareness of things like retinoids, DMAE, and all things Anti-inflammatory. Funny thing, though, he didn’t invent any of these things. He did, on the other hand, allow me to be more informed of this subject matter. What I chose to do with this info was entirely up to me!
|
Great. So he gave you some information, but did you examine that information any further, or just take his word for it? I'm a natural skeptic, inclined not to do that.
So, if you had looked up the scientific research on DMAE using a simple PubMed search at the time Barrett and Hall wrote their page, there was only one small Belgium study (published 2002) comprised of 30 volunteers which sought to measure the effects of DMAE on the face. They found that DMAE formulation at 3% increased firmness. While those results may be valid, I would not put my health and wealth at risk on the basis of just 30 volunteers. Yet that was exactly what Perricone was asking us to do at that time.
Looking again, there is a recent (2007) study published in the British Journal of Dermatology about DMAE, which shows more information is needed about the effects of DMAE. (
IngentaConnect The antiwrinkle effect of topical concentrated 2-dimethylaminoeth...) I've reproduced part of the conclusions from the research below; since you work for a dermatologist,
I'm assuming you can get access to this journal as well.
In particular, "To our knowledge, no information is available
on the systemic absorption of DMAE, but animal toxicology
data for triethanolamine suggest efficient transdermal absorption,
low systemic toxicity or carcinogenicity, rapid elimination
in urine and ‘cloudy swelling’ (which may be synonymous
with koilocytosis) in liver and renal tubule cells at high doses.4
Diethanolamine, also commonly used in cosmetic formulations
(1–25%), caused fetal wastage, decreased mitosis and increased
apoptosis in fetal brain tissue when applied to the skin of pregnant
mice.19 The vacuolar cytopathology induced by concentrated
organic amines and its consequences (mitotic arrest,
inhibition of the secretory pathway, minor cytotoxicity) may
not be dissociable from the improvement of the skin appearance
that is rapidly produced by topically administered DMAE." (emphasis mine)
This may mean that DMAE is safe enough, but there are plenty of us on Specktra that tend to avoid as many chemicals as possible when using cosmetics. Furthermore, a lot of us are animal-rights activists. DMAE has been directly developed from animal studies. The 2007 study I quote above uses rabbits, white mice and human tissue to measure the effects of DMAE. Some of us would object to paying money towards that kind of research, no matter what the benefits are.
Furthermore, the information about the fetal mice indicates that DMAE should probably be avoided by pregnant women entirely, at least until it is shown to be absolutely safe for pregnant humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamEva Le Fay
Ratmist…I surely hope that isn’t your idea of doing the research? Have you ever even flipped through one of his books in a store simply to see how he presents the info? Or did Dr. Barrett brainwash you into thinking his books are only worthy of book burning parties? Hmmmmm?
|
I am a scientist and a researcher. A small 15 minute sample of my researching ability is reproduced above. And again, no one was advocating book burning, merely a healthy dose of skepticism, which rarely does any harm to anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamEva Le Fay
I find it ironic that you’ve highlighted/pointed out my very own personal regimen, not in Perricone’s book, of cupboard/poorgirls tricks in helping skin look its best on a dime as in having no scientific basis.
Why, naturally, of course, because these are remedies taken straight out of my own “Witches Bible” from the chapter entitled “How to use a little common sense and look Be-witching while doing it!”
That I believe is self-explanatory considering I merely suggested using foods on your face to brighten a complexion based on – oh now you’re going to make me say it…(and it’s soooo un PC here)…”Old-Wives Tales”
I must be careful now – or I’ll be burned-at-the-stake for suggesting teabags or cucumbers on the eyes for - you guessed it…PUFFINESS, or, at the very least, for not providing a scientific citation for it!
|
All I advocated was a bit of scientific research that debunks a lot of the nonsense offered as sound scientifically-based advice. If that offends you, you might want to ask yourself why.
I use a lot of simple remedies because I am a self-confessed cheapskate. I also know that using, for example, honey on my skin as a simple face wash, isn't going to cause me serious problems or affect the ability of my skin cells to reproduce (mitotic arrest) or give my skill cells any level of cytotoxicity. Same goes for an aspirin face mask. In general, "witches" remedies are utterly harmless, relatively cheap, and often do work quite well. I do not know that is true of DMAE, for example.
I am quite skeptical of anyone telling me that by changing my diet drastically I will receive huge benefits to my skin. The causal relationship between diet and skin is not well defined and varies from person to person. Hence, I am quite adverse to hearing people tell me (or anyone else) what they should and should not eat in order to have healthy, clear, enviably beautiful skin. The science doesn't back it up, and even well meaning advice can be dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamEva Le Fay
P.S. I wouldn’t recommend simply, and solely, covering up the situation with makeup in hopes to disguise the issue. Yes, while it’s true that some people have a genetic disposition to have overly oily skin that will enhance and promote enlarged pores. Just as some of us have a genetic disposition to develop more wrinkles prematurely, that too, is considered “normal”. There isn’t anything you can tell me - that will make me not want to do something about it! Never-the-less that there’s nothing that can be done about it!
|
Do what your money and time what you want. *shrug* But that doesn't mean I am wrong to point out an alternative opinion about what can be done about the appearance of wrinkles, fine lines, enlarged pores, oiliness, etc., one that is supported by others in the medical field. Others on the site may find it valuable to hear the other side of the argument, you know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamEva Le Fay
There’s a world of difference between “poreless” skin, as you state, and a smooth, youthful, healthy looking skin that doesn’t appear damaged. To use a silicone to spackle the issue underneath a makeup is a recipe for disaster and unbeknownst to you – you are making your pores worse. You must, at the very least, agree that you should do more - than just - cover it up!
|
First, poreless was meant in a sarcastic tone. But it's fun to jump on a single word in my previous post and make it sound like I'm an idiot, right?
As far as silicone goes, many products on the market contain silicone, from shampoo/conditioner to makeup itself, to almost every type of toiletry on the market. It is a safe additive, even if a lot of people are now objecting to it.
My pores are absolutely fine, thanks. The oiliness and the enlarged pores are normal, even if I find it unsightly. My regime above did not include my cleansing routine because I did not feel it was necessary to include it. Everyone has a very personalised cleansing routine dependant on what they feel works for them. There was no point telling what works for me as far as cleansing goes - which does include microderm abrasion, face masks, moisturisers, foaming cleansers, etc. My skin may behave very differently from the OP, so there was no point going into the cleansing routine. The only thing I have in common with the OP, as far as I'm aware, is the fact that we both have large pores we do not like, and would like to do something about it.
Enlarged pores can be temporarily tightened (the skin around it, yes), but these are temporary measures, not permanent. The OP seemed to be looking for a
permanent solution. I merely stated that
there is none. That is still the absolute fundamental truth of the matter. Some people prefer not to go for the temporary solutions of the type you advocate because they are expensive, time-consuming, and potentially quite harmful to the health. Therefore, "covering up" solutions (makeup) is an acceptable, safe alternative that can yield in a consistent manner the results we're after, and the whole reason why I would think we both ended up on Specktra in the first place.
That may cause you severe distress and anxiety because to you, there's plenty of help and solutions from a dermatology point of view. From what I've seen and read however, like so much in the beauty industry, it's all an illusion.