Pigmentation and wrinkles! Should I try Osmosis
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:02 am

DarkMoon wrote:

I was referring to not seeing them
in the catalyst list of ingredients? Why they choose to use them in products for day use especially ss is beyond me as I know that citrus essential oils are photosensitive any aromatherapy book or reputable site would verify this. That makes me even more leery of this brands formulating.

IMHO
DM

I did not know one shouldn't use citrus EO's during the day, which is why I listed the EO's on some of the products above.

Very strange indeed to put them into daytime use formulas, but then again the comment on oxidized LAA is strange, as well!

free skin care · Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:57 pm

This is Marta from Truth in Aging's review on the Catalyst.

http://truthinaging.com/face/osmosis-catalyst-is-not-for-me/

free skin care · Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:14 pm

rileygirl wrote:

This is Marta from Truth in Aging's review on the Catalyst.

http://truthinaging.com/face/osmosis-catalyst-is-not-for-me/

Thanks for that Riley. I guess that confirms our suspicions about the developer of Catalyst. I had wondered if the alcohol would be drying as well; Marta addressed that issue quite clearly! Perhaps that is why Osmosis recommends layering a product over it.

Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:37 pm

rileygirl wrote:

Havana, thanks so much for posting that info. Definitely very interesting. Wow, I don't know what to think about the oxidized LAA comment either? I find it unsettling as well, but I don't know anything about this zinc finger stuff. How long have you been using it now Havana, and have you had any results yet?

Hi RG, okay, so I double-checked and I've been using it for almost four weeks. I can't say that I have noticed any positive results to speak of and, in fact, might even go so far as to say that my skin has been looking a little worse during this time. It doesn't sting for me to the degree that TIA described it (I could be wrong but I think Marta mentioned having rosacea? might be the differentiating factor with that), but there was still a sting even being mixed with Replenish.

free skin care · Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:17 am

fadedgirl wrote:

rileygirl wrote:

This is Marta from Truth in Aging's review on the Catalyst.

http://truthinaging.com/face/osmosis-catalyst-is-not-for-me/

waaaa she couldn't have posted that yesterday before I purchased it? Laughing

Why is she paying $160 for it? Every place I looked had for $120.00.

LOL! I make sure to wait a LONG time anymore before I purchase something!! I don't think she purchased anything. I am sure they provided her a sample bottle to use. I think they are supposedly going to up their prices (or at least they were at one point according to JoElla)

Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:27 am

I finally caught up with the friend I am splitting the bottle with and she has been using it both with Replenish (I was wrong about that) and alone. I wasn't able to get any more info out of her as she is travelling right now and has bigger priorities. (Ah.... how I wish it were me. Razz

)

estysteph, I was reading your experience with the product--thanks for sharing it Smile

--and it got me to thinking that I should mention that my expectations for the product do not include HP, but rather some of the other claims regarding broken capilliaries, general anti-aging and skin health. I thought a more even skin tone might also be a reasonable expectation.

Hopefully whatever response estysteph gets will be able to clarify further and enable us to put all the pieces together.

free skin care · Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:29 pm

This is what the inventor had to say about C (taken from the patent details):

Quote:

Topical compositions for accelerated production of collagen proteins include ascorbate. In the preferred composition, the ascorbate amounts to about 21.5 % m/v of the composition.

Ascorbates are mineral salts of ascorbic acid, which is weakly acidic. Typically, ascorbates are powders that are manufactured by reacting ascorbic acid with mineral carbonates in aqueous solutions, venting the carbon dioxide, drying the reaction product, and then milling the dried product to the desired particle size. An example of mineral carbonates suitable for reaction with ascorbic acid to form ascorbates include calcium carbonate. According to embodiments of the invention, one ascorbate or several different ascorbates may be used in the topical composition.

It is understood that when the ascorbates are dissolved in solution, ascorbic acid is produced and may participate in the hydroxylation of tropocollagen factors. Ascorbic acid is readily available because of the amount of ascorbate in the composition.

Because ascorbates are dry solids, they may be easily stored and measured and this is one reason why they are preferred as ingredients. In alternative embodiments of the invention, topical compositions may substitute ascorbic acid for the ascorbates or may use mixtures of both ascorbic acid and ascorbates.

I don't see any mention of oxidized L-AA. In fact, it states that L-AA may be used as a substitute for the calcium ascorbate (which Osmosis chose not to do for it's Catalyst product).

free skin care · Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:58 am

Skintuition wrote:

*edited to remove self-promotion*

Actually, we are discussing facts, and trying to understand a statement made by an Osmosis representative. No one is trying to get into the head of the original formulator.

Who said the original formula used L-AA? The patent-holder/inventor never said that? I see no mention of oxidation anywhere in the patent. Are you suggesting that the first batch of Catalyst was prepared with L-AA while this newer batch is using the Calcium Ascorbate as the C? The ingredients list says otherwise. Once again, I will say that it was Osmosis who mentioned oxidation of L-AA, not the inventor. (refer to Havana's post for clarification).

Could you please explain how "oxidation is critical for the activation of zinc fingers". TIA

free skin care · Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:09 pm

Maybe JoElla can get to the bottom of this via Dr. J?

free skin care · Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:08 am

estysteph wrote:

In my question to Osmosis I quoted what was previously stated:

Osmosis quote "The version we have circulating right now is more effective the darker it is. Oxidation of the L-ascorbic Acid is one of the ways that Catalyst and the Zinc Fingers work."

Dr. Ben answered back with:

"That is what we were told initially by the inventor. I no longer share that opinion. The calcium ascorbate was chosen for better stability (less browning). It has the same efficacy as the old formula, maybe better."

I'm assuming that means the original formula had the LAA then they changed to CA. I have found that is the way with Osmosis products. If something is found to work better then it is changed. They have reformulated a lot of their products in the past year. Hope this helps.

Has Dr. Johnson taken the inventors original formula and changed it himself, or did the inventor come up with a new formula for Osmosis?

Estysteph, could you please find out more information from Dr. Johnson on zinc fingers. Is the claim from Osmosis what Skintuition has stated on page 1 of this thread "The amino acids in Catalyst are in a zinc finger formation" or is Osmosis claiming that once the Catalyst is on the skin zinc fingers are formed?

free skin care · Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:10 pm

Skintuition wrote:

*edited to remove self-promotion*

I was hoping by the time I got back to the forum some of our skilled researchers would have found you out for the fraud you are.. It's not nice to pretend you are a physician. It's also not very nice to be a spammer.

"Skintuition" just got laughed off the psoriasis forum, for the same post for 'Harmonized Water miracles'... She/he can also be found on other forums talking about the wonders of 'Osmosis', with the same *sharing* as in these pages.

talkpsoriasis.org
dermascope.com
skincaretalk.com

***Fine words and an insinuating appearance are seldom associated with true virtue.. Sad

***

Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:36 am

I have just read through this thread and felt it was necessary for me to comment. First of all, it appears that everyone has strong opinions about what works and what does not work. So let me set the record straight and then you can ask me your questions directly.

Catalyst with SRGF-7 was invented by Kevin Meehan. I am currently working with him and feel privileged to be one of the first (and hopefully few) that have the opportunity to sell this remarkable "zinc finger" technology. Based on a sampling of roughly 500 initial users, we have seen melasma, capillaries, age spots, and wrinkles respond extremely well. There is a case report of a basal cell carcinoma disappearing within several weeks of topical use of Catalyst. There are several case reports of actinic keratosis disappearing as well. Skin tags are also falling off which I believe is explained by the ability of Catalyst to heal DNA damaged by viruses.
While I can appreciate the skepticism of such claims, time will likely reveal this to be a very special technology.
As for the Harmonized Water, I can completely understand the skeptics on this technology. I do have multiple cases of eczema, psoriasis clearances and one person has been clear for 4 months even after she stopped the water. I have over 30 formulas and have been testing them for over a year with remarkable results.
I will stop there because I do not want to appear as though this is promotional. The facts are the facts. I think it is a little unfair to castigate people who are passionate about a line and want to tell the world. I read the posts on the psoriasis blog and they were unfair and unwarranted. This is something special and whether you believe it is possible or not, please have the courtesy to hear several from others who have actually tried it before passing judgment.
I also read Marta's blog. We spoke to Marta. Her reaction to Catalyst has happened to less than 5% and is a reflection of her skin's sensitivity and not Catalyst's performance. If you have sensitive skin then you use less and we are not sure if fewer than 5 drops can achieve significant change in the skin. In other words, it may be possible that you need to reach a certain level in the cell to achieve proper DNA repair. In addition, the 10% calcium ascorbate is too strong for some of these delicate skin types which can lead to the experience that Marta had.
In summary, I really do like the forum/blog concept. It is great to get so many opinions and perspectives. The danger is always determining the accuracy of information. I am available for questions on any of these subjects. For those who know me, I am painfully honest and hopefully can provide clarity to your questions.
Thanks,
Ben Johnson, MD

free skin care · Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:49 pm

Ben Johnson, MD wrote:

Originally I had understood Kevin to say that the zinc finger formation was pre-formed. The verbage quoted from Osmosis and posted here reflected my initial misunderstanding. Catalyst contains a precise combination of components that form zinc fingers inter-cellularly. Honestly, I was skeptical of this claim at first. After all, how do we know it does this? Without lab studies (which may be forthcoming) we can only base this belief on unique results.

However, when we see actinic keratosis disappear (remember, current derm protocols are to use topical chemotherapy for that..I'm not a fan) and capillaries disappear then we know that there has to be something special happening inter-cellularly from this combination of fairly common ingredients.

Thank you for your reply, Dr. Johnson. I would think as a doctor you would be skeptical of those claims and would want some studies to back up the claims. I would be most interested to see the lab studies that show the Catalyst forms zinc fingers intercellularly. I do hope they will be published for all to see.

I still do not like the drug-like claims made for the precancerous skin lesions and as I stated earlier, I would hate for someone to choose to use the Catalyst instead of going to a derm to get themselves checked-out. As we all know, nothing works for everyone and it would be most unfortunate if a person with AK progressed to squamous cell cancer because they chose a topical product to use instead of seeking a professional.

I will wait for the studies and more reviews on the product. Thank you again for replying.

free skin care · Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:42 pm

Yes, that's why I originally asked if the oxygen was just a component of the purified water. Truth In Aging is usually very accurate in their reporting. Their ingredient list includes the special water which does not appear at all on Havana's bottle.

Confusing, indeed.

Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:03 am

If you are finding amazing results with the combination then I think it it OK to continue...wouldn't want you going through withdrawals Smile

Let me just take a second to explain my theory on why Retin A conflicts with Catalyst;
First of all, I have seen the skin of long-time users and I have talked to hundreds of physicians and estheticians who have many patients/clients on long-term use of Retin A... and no one is reporting positive results with continuous use. The skin looks unhealthy and vascular. I appreciate that it helps fine lines modestly but that is also a temporary effect.

A couple things you should know; Retin A is toxic to the skin which is why the skin makes so little of it. Retin A cannot be stored by the skin. There are only trace amounts in the epidermis naturally and the addition of Retin A topically causes the epidermal barrier to change by stopping the normal progression of keratinocytes. In other words, Retin A significantly alters normal epidermal function leading to large increases in free radicals. Free radicals result in aging, DNA damage, increased risk of skin cancer and everything that follows from that combination. In addition, research shows Retin A interferes with the dermal remodeling effort. It actually inhibits some of the break down of damaged collagen. So the combination of increasing the damage to collagen and reducing the repair of that damaged collagen may best explain why people on long term Retin A seem to age. The final Retin A point I will make is that I think Retin A in large doses (besides adding toxins to the body and inflammation to the skin) causes already over-worked fibroblasts to produce more fragile collagen which is also an issue that adds to the many concerns discussed previously.
So in summary....you may want to reconsider the combination. I prefer retinaldehyde because it is stored by the skin, it is proven to be as strong as Retin A for in stimulating collagen but it does not have any of the other problems listed because the skin only converts the retinaldehyde to Retin A at the level the skin wants/needs.

Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:39 pm

As far as I know, Catalyst has never had oxygen in the formula and I do not know why she had that in there (although I have not looked at her report specifically).

As for the differentiation of retinols. I'm afraid that is a little too long to be complete...but I will say this;
All retinols have some other functions besides collagen manufacturing. I believe that the actual manufacturing of collagen requires retinoic acid receptor stimulation which means that all retinols need to go through "modification" to be formed into retinoic acid. Retinaldehyde is the immediate precursor, I believe retinyl palmitate is what is used to make retinaldehyde in may cases...preceeded by retinol, beta carotene...
Therefore, these other retinols, which are 1000 times weaker than retinaldehyde and retinoic acid when it comes to collagen stimulation, are not forcing the skin to make collagen the way Retin A does. For these reasons I think retinols are safe for use.
The only downside of high % retinol use is that retinols have about a 2% penetration rate on the skin and it gets stuck in the epidermis and causes exfoliation..which I think is damaging long-term. I believe in liposomal delivery of retinols to reduce the irritation (from being stuck) and improve the efficacy. Either way, they are better than Retin A...in my opinion...

Please understand that much of this is a big departure from the current view of the dermatology community.

free skin care · Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:45 pm

And while we're on the subject of formulations, what exactly is SRGF-7 (Skin Repair Growth Factor)?? I have seen this specified in descriptions of what Catalyst contains.

Ben Johnson, MD wrote:

I love how interested you all are in ingredients.

Dr Johnson: You'd be hard put to find a better collection of skin care brainiacs than what you encounter at this board. I've learned a lot from them either through their personal experience with results or because certain of them understand the science. Still others do a lot of research and some have photographic memories. All are quick to share info. I view EDS as the Ivy League of beauty forums - for the lay person.

free skin care · Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:50 pm

rileygirl wrote:

Ben Johnson, MD wrote:

but it is all for the sake of making the most potent version we can.

Goodness, how much more potent could it be after your claims regarding the Catalyst? Has Mr. Meehan come up with a different formula or different arrangement of ingredients to make it more effective than what you have already stated the Catalyst does?

Maybe he is looking for the ultimate "Mulligan Stew" for skin care.

free skin care · Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:15 am

Ben Johnson, MD wrote:

We just had another report of a skin cancer disappearing from Catalyst...let's hope that continues Smile

Has this been confirmed by a Dermatologist or Licensed Medical Doctor? Have you reported this to the FDA? I believe that curing skin cancer would be of interest to them.

Apparently you are claiming your products are effective for curing diseases; doesn't that classify it as a drug (rather than a cosmetic) and therefore subject to FDA regulations, including clinical trials and drug protocols?

free skin care · Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:44 am

Ben Johnson, MD wrote:

I want to be clear, these are just anecdotal reports. We are not claiming a "cure". While I am licensed in California, I am not a dermatologist nor am I her physician of record. I did not personally photograph the results or witness the process unfold. However, I thought, since this thread is interested in hearing more feedback on Catalyst, that this would be of interest to you all.
We are just talking about collateral benefits of a topical serum that uses "zinc finger" technology. The FDA is more concerned about products that cause harm...in an effort to keep us safe. Great results like these are more appropriately reported to the consumer, not the FDA...in my opinion....but again, no one is talking about a "cure" here.

You said this:

Ben Johnson, MD wrote:

We just had another report of a skin cancer disappearing from Catalyst...let's hope that continues Smile

What is the difference between skin cancer "disappearing", and skin cancer being "cured"? As a Licensed Medical Doctor in California (I thought you resided in Colorado?), can you explain it to us in simplified English?

I usually use information from the FDA website to define a drug; it states:

How does the law define a drug?

Quote:

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)].

It further makes this distinction for the consumer:

How is a product's intended use established?

Quote:

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.

Consumer perception, which may be established through the product's reputation. This means asking why the consumer is buying it and what the consumer expects it to do.

Ingredients that may cause a product to be considered a drug because they have a well known (to the public and industry) therapeutic use. An example is fluoride in toothpaste.

What makes you think that it is the "zinc finger" technology that is causing these cases of skin cancer to "disappear" in anecdotal reports?

free skin care · Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:14 am

Glamcat wrote:

I too found that as my skin improved I didnt need to use as much of each product either Wink

but my skin has gone a little crazy lately due to some extreme stress - just trying to get the stress sorted so that everything else can settle down again! I find stress brings on this dermatitis or whatever it is that I get - and then I get stressed about the dermatitis and it becomes a perpetual cycle... just need to chill-out Laughing

Glamcat - completely off-topic - but try putting some plain old Zinc Oxide (the type used for nappy rash) on your inflamed skin. It's become my go-to remedy for everything lately. Also works wonders on dry lips.

free skin care · Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:23 am

egyptiangoddess wrote:

Keliu, do you have any updates about the Osmosis C powder? Do you still use it? Did you notice any benefits from it? Thanks if you reply! Smile

I'm still using it and have my daughter on it now too. I really like this method of application because I know it's fresh and this particular powder dissolves really quickly.

I've been using Vitamin C for around six years now - and can't say that I've noticed any particular benefits. Plus, I do so many other things to my skin, who knows what's doing what! But Vitamin C is part of the Holy Trinity of A, C and E so I'll definitely keep on keeping on.

free skin care · Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:05 am

egyptiangoddess wrote:

Thank you very much Keliu! Very Happy

I like that it comes with a scoop that = 10%! Do you just mix yours in the palm of your hand with serum or water?

I mix mine with Aloe Vera Gel in the palm of my hand. Aloe Vera Gel is cheap and has nice skin benefits and sinks right in. My other serums and oil go over the top with no problems. Of course, you could just use water if you want to.

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.