Did you know that the average skincare product provides less than 5% penetration. It is important to use products that offer a high penetration rate. The fact is skincare products should have a good delivery system in place. Your products should be formulated to help rebuild, repair, remodel and preserve the epidermal layers of the skin while building collagen and strengthening elasticity. A liposome delivery system is key to product penetration.
Liposomes are microscopic spheres that are so tiny making the absorption almost perfect which solves many problems for special nutrient deficiencies within the skin. Products which are poorly absorbed or which have a normal molecular size inhibit efficient absorption providing very little nutrient value for our skin cells. Normal absorption is in the 3-5 percent range, liposomal absorption is 90 plus percent!
Does your skincare products have this system in place. I have the perfect solution. I can help you get that healthy radiant skin you have always wanted without using harsh ingredients, chemicals or causing inflammation.
Osmosis Pur Medical Skin Care
The Bees Knees of Skin Care!
About Osmosis SkincareThe Future is Here.
Osmosis Skin Care offers a collection of facial products that are safe to use on even the most sensitive skin because they are infused with nutrients that are highly efficacious and yet non-inflammatory. For decades most skincare companies have been using irritating ingredients that work by inflaming the skin. This has to change if we want to reverse aging skin. Most skincare companies also struggle to get adequate penetration (2-5% on average) and they have failed to address the lack of skin nutrition needed to feed the repair process. This has resulted in poor outcomes throughout the world.
Osmosis achieves remarkable results by addressing every aspect of skin damage; collagen/elastin production, scar tissue build-up, loss of skin nutrition and growth factors, and DNA damage. In addition, Osmosis Skincare avoids ingredients and strategies that weaken and inflame the skin. Finally, Osmosis Skincare differentiates itself by using the most advanced ingredients in the world. We are the first to offer DNA repair strategies using Zinc Finger Technology™. We are the first to offer liposomally delivered stem cell growth factors. We have over 17 patents pending for ingredients that have the unique ability to improve the skin without damaging or interfering with its proper function. Osmosis Skincare is the first company discussing increasing skin nutrition and offering multiple modalities to achieve that goal.
No skincare line in the world has a more complete approach to skin health than Osmosis Skincare.
Your results will reflect that.
1. The product should be chirally correct.
2. Non-toxic (i.e. no parabens, fragrances, etc...)
3. Formulated with a delivery system such as liposome technology that allows ingredients to penetrate into the dermis.
4. Ingredients that penetrate should be time tested (independently) to stimulate collagen production and improve the health of the skin. Beware of marketing hype that uses fancy terminology.
The introduction of retinoic acid and alpha hydroxy acids to skincare products marks the first time consumers saw immediate gratification in their anti-aging quest. It was a boom for esthetics, who now had clients setting up monthly visits to get their acid fix as part of their facial. The results were impressive-plump, taut skin with a reduced appearance of wrinkles. Who wouldn't be hooked.
The problem, however, is that these results are only temporary, and in the long run they actually damage the skin and cause it to age faster than it would if we didn't use the harsh products and techniques. The reason is that when we apply retinoic acid and alpha hydroxy acids to the skin, we are causing inflammation-and inflammation is bad for the skin. When you apply an acid to your face-and this applies to almost every acid, depending on the concentration-you immediately create trauma. This trauma results in swelling. Swelling makes wrinkles and fine lines look better, but only temporarily.
The other effect of these treatments is that they damage the epidermal barrier. The skin, being the intelligent defense mechanism that it is, sees this damage as an assault and seeks to fix the problem. In what is called an "emergency repair response," the skin rushes to repair the damaged epidermis, which speeds up the epidermal turnover rate. Unfortunately, many skincare experts assume that increased epidermal turnover is a good thing-evidence that the skin is returning to its youthful functioning-yet, this forced exfoliation is actually the skin's equivalent of a four-alarm fire.
Ben Johnson, MD "Transform Your Skin Naturally", 2010, Chapter 2, pp. 21-22.
From EWG Skin Deep
Myth – If it’s for sale at a supermarket, drugstore, or department store cosmetics counter, it must be safe.
Fact – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has no authority to require companies to test products for safety. FDA does not review or approve the vast majority of products or ingredients before they go on the market. The agency conducts pre-market reviews only for certain color additives and active ingredients in cosmetics classified as over-the-counter drugs (FDA 2005, 2010).
Myth – The cosmetics industry effectively polices itself, making sure all ingredients meet a strict standard of safety.
Fact – In its more than 30-year history, the industry’s safety panel (the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, or CIR) has assessed fewer than 20 percent of cosmetics ingredients and found only 11 ingredients or chemical groups to be unsafe (FDA 2007, CIR 2009, Houlihan 2008). Its recommendations are not binding on companies (Houlihan 2008).
Myth – The government prohibits dangerous chemicals in personal care products, and companies wouldn’t risk using them.
Fact – Cosmetics companies may use any ingredient or raw material, except for color additives and a few prohibited substances, without government review or approval (FDA 2005, FDA 2000).
Fact – People are exposed by breathing in sprays and powders, swallowing chemicals on the lips or hands or absorbing them through the skin. Studies find evidence of health risks. Biomonitoring studies have found cosmetics ingredients – like phthalate plasticizers, paraben preservatives, the pesticide triclosan, synthetic musks, and sunscreens – as common pollutants in men, women and children. Many of these chemicals are potential hormone disruptors (Gray et al. 1986, Schreurs et al. 2004, Gomez et al. 2005, Veldhoen et al. 2006). Products commonly contain penetration enhancers to drive ingredients deeper into the skin. Studies find health problems in people exposed to common fragrance and sunscreen ingredients, including elevated risk for sperm damage, feminization of the male reproductive system, and low birth weight in girls (Duty et al. 2003, Hauser et al. 2007, Swan et al. 2005, Wolff et al. 2008).
Myth – Products made for children or bearing claims like “hypoallergenic” are safer choices.
Fact – Most cosmetic marketing claims are unregulated, and companies are rarely if ever required to back them up, even for children’s products. A company can use a claim like “hypoallergenic” or “natural” “to mean anything or nothing at all,” and while “[m]ost of the terms have considerable market value in promoting cosmetic products to consumers,… dermatologists say they have very little medical meaning” (FDA 1998). An investigation of more than 1,700 children’s body care products found that 81 percent of those marked “gentle” or “hypoallergenic” contained allergens or skin and eye irritants (EWG 2007a).
Myth – Natural and organic products are always safer.
Fact – Products labeled natural or organic often contain synthetic chemicals, and even truly natural or organic ingredients are not necessarily risk-free. The global, plant-based pharmaceutical market, valued at $19.5 billion in 2008, relies on the ability of “natural” chemicals – like those used in some natural cosmetics – to significantly alter body functions, a far cry from innocuous (BCC Research 2006, 2009). On the other hand, products labeled “organic” or “natural” can contain petrochemicals and no certified organic or natural ingredients whatsoever. Products certified as organic can contain as little as 10% organic ingredients by weight or volume (Certech 2008). FDA tried establishing an official definition for the term “natural,” but these protections were overturned in court (FDA 1998). Research shows that 35 percent of children’s products marketed as “natural” contain artificial preservatives (EWG 2007a).
Myth – FDA would promptly recall any product that injures people.
Fact – FDA has no authority to require recalls of harmful cosmetics. Furthermore, manufacturers are not required to report cosmetics-related injuries to the agency. FDA relies on companies to report injuries voluntarily (FDA 2005).
Myth – Consumers can read ingredient labels and avoid products with hazardous chemicals.
Fact – Federal law allows companies to leave many chemicals off labels, including nanomaterials, ingredients considered trade secrets, and components of fragrance (Houlihan 2008). Fragrance may include any of 3,163 different chemicals (IFRA 2010), none of which are required to be listed on labels. Fragrance tests reveal an average of 14 hidden compounds per formulation, including potential hormone disruptors and diethyl phthalate, a compound linked to sperm damage (EWG & CSC, 2010).
Myth – Cosmetics safety is a concern for women only.
Fact – Surveys show that on average, women use 12 products containing 168 ingredients every day, men use 6 products with 85 ingredients (EWG 2004), and children are exposed to an average of 61 ingredients daily (EWG 2007a). The industry-funded CIR safety panel incorrectly assumes that consumers are exposed to just one chemical at a time, and personal care products are the only source of exposure (EWG 2004).
Authors: Jason Rano, Legislative Analyst, and Jane Houlihan, Senior Vice President for Research.
References BCC Research. 2006. Plant-Derived Drugs: Products, Technolog, Applications. Report Code BIO022D. June 2006. http://www.bccresearch.com/report/BIO022D.html.
BCC Research. 2009. Safety Botanical and Plant-Derived Drugs: Global Markets. Report Code BIO022E, February 2009. http://www.bccresearch.com/report/BIO022E.html.
Calafat AM, Wong LY, Ye X, Reidy JA, Needham LL. 2008. Concentrations of the sunscreen agent benzophenone-3 in residents of the United States: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003–2004. Environ Health Perspect. 2008 Jul;116(7):893-7.
Certech Registration Inc. 2008. International organic standard – Natural and natural organic cosmetic certification. IOS Cosmetics. Issue 01. April 2008. http://www.certechregistration.com/IOS_cosmetics_standard.pdf.
CIR (Cosmetic Ingredient Review). 2009. Ingredients found unsafe for use in cosmetics (9 total, through December, 2009). http://www.cir-safety.org/findings.shtml.
CSC (Campaign for Safe Cosmetics). 2007. Lead in lipstick. http://www.safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=223.
CSC (The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics). 2009. No more toxic tub. http://www.safecosmetics.org/downloads/NoMoreToxicTub_Mar09Report.pdf.
Duty SM, Singh NP, Silva MJ, Barr DB, Brock JW, Ryan L, et al. 2003. The Relationship between Environmental Exposures to Phthalates and DNA Damage in Human Sperm Using the Neutral Comet Assay. Environ Health Perspect 111(9): 1164-9.
EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2004. Exposures Add Up – Survey Results. http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/research/exposures.php.
EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2006. EWG Comments to FDA on Nano-Scale Ingredients in Cosmetics. Docket: FDA Regulated Products Containing Nanotechnology Materials. Docket number: 2006N-0107. http://www.ewg.org/node/21738.
EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2007a. Safety Guide to Children’s Personal Care Products. http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/special/parentsguide/summary.php.
EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2007b. Cosmetics with banned and unsafe ingredients. Table 1 – Banned in other countries. Accessed June 21, 2010. http://www.ewg.org/node/22624.
EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2007c. Cosmetics With Banned and Unsafe Ingredients. Table 2 – Unsafe for use in cosmetics, according to industry. Accessed June 21, 2010. http://www.ewg.org/node/22636.
EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2007d. EWG research shows 22 percent of cosmetics may be contaminated with cancer-causing impurity. http://www.ewg.org/node/21286.
EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2010. EWG’s 2010 sunscreen guide. Nanomaterials and hormone disruptors in sunscreens. http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/full-report/nanomaterials-and-hormone-disruptors-in-sunscreens/.
EWG & CSC (Environmental Working Group and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics). 2010. Not so sexy. Hidden chemicals in perfume and cologne. http://www.safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=644
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 1998. Clearing Up Cosmetic Confusion” by Carol Lewis. FDA Consumer magazine. May-June 1998. http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/health/cosmetic-confusion/398_cosm.html.
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2000. Ingredients prohibited & restricted by FDA regulations. June 22, 1996; Updated May 30, 2000. http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductandIngredientSafety/SelectedCosmeticIngredients/ucm127406.htm.
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2005. FDA authority over cosmetics. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-206.html.
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2007. Compliance Program Guidance Manual. Program 7329.001. Chapter 29 – Colors and Cosmetics Technology. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ComplianceEnforcement/ucm073356.pdf.
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2010. Regulation of non-prescription products. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-206.html.
Gomez E, Pillon A, Fenet H, Rosain D, Duchesne MJ, Nicolas JC, et al. 2005. Estrogenic activity of cosmetic components in reporter cell lines: parabens, UV screens, and musks. Journal of toxicology and environmental health 68(4): 239-251.
Gray TJ, Gangolli SD. 1986. Aspects of the testicular toxicity of phthalate esters. Environmental health perspectives 65: 229-23.
Hauser R, et al. DNA damage in human sperm is related to urinary levels of phthalate monoester and oxidative metabolites. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(3):688-95.
Houlihan, J. 2008. Statement of Jane Houlihan on Cosmetics Safety: Discussion Draft of the ‘Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act’ Legislation: Device and Cosmetic Safety. Before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, United State House of Representatives. May 14 2008. http://www.ewg.org/node/26545.
IFRA (International Fragrance Association). 2010. Ingredients. IFRA survey: Transparency list. http://www.ifraorg.org/public/index_ps/parentid/1/childid/15/leafid/111.
Schreurs RH, Legler J, Artola-Garicano E, Sinnige TL, Lanser PH, Seinen W, et al. 2004. In vitro and in vivo antiestrogenic effects of polycyclic musks in zebrafish. Environmental science & technology 38(4): 997-1002.
Swan SH, Main KM, Liu F, Stewart SL, Kruse RL, Calafat AM, et al. 2005. Decrease in anogenital distance among male infants with prenatal phthalate exposure. Environ Health Perspect 113(8):1056-61.
Veldhoen N, Skirrow RC, Osachoff H, Wigmore H, Clapson DJ, Gunderson MP, et al. 2006. The bactericidal agent triclosan modulates thyroid hormone-associated gene expression and disrupts postembryonic anuran development. Aquatic toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 80(3): 217-227.
Wolff MS, Engel SM, Berkowitz GS, Ye X, Silva MJ, Zhu C, Wetmur J, Calafat AM. 2008. Prenatal phenol and phthalate exposures and birth outcomes. Environ Health Perspect. 2008 Aug;116(8):1092-7.
to dermagrace cosmetic rejuvenation blog and information center. If you're looking for dramatic and long lasting skin improvements…look no further. My goal is to provide the most authoritative skin care protocols, research and articles. Everyday I search for relevant and reliable information. I look forward to any comments or questions.