Dr. Yechiel-Elsom Research Topical maker invited to forum for Q\'s (Please Read)

[Jacob]

» This seems like a rather silly response. Dutasteride is already being
» formulated into a topical form in a product called MDF Samson. Product
» comes from a US licensed compounding pharmacy. Pretty sure this does not
» violate patent laws. Is this guy just on here to sound smart and try and
» sell his dubious herbal crap?
»

4 whole posts and already calling something crap. Cute.
You do have to get a prescription for the MDF, if I’m not mistaken.

It’s nice to see you here btw, Dr. Y.
My regimen listed at the bottom here needs to be updated. I still do plan on adding your latest topical one of these days.

[Dr_Yechiel]

hello, Pete,

There are other products from other manufacturers or distributors out there and some are fine products. If you ask specifically about a specific product I may be able to assess the merit of its ingredients.

As you are asking for my personal recommendations, and as I as I have much experience with our own formulations, the recommendations I can offer are from the Elsom Research catalog, as follows:

2 shampoos: Micellarin Green (for scalp stimulation) and Micellarin Black (for graying hair). Micellarin Black is not yet available for retail sale, but it could be our Skincare of the Month for April or May, after which it will be available for sale.

1 topical: scalpXtreme.

The combination will improve the appearance of scalp and will make the hair look thicker.

We don’t share personal photos we receive from customers; they own their images, and can do with them what they like. From customers’ comments and from our own observations we know that our products are quite powerful and gentle at the same time (like the heroes in the old movies used to be).

Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal

[Dr_Yechiel]

Hello, wantluxurioushair,

The product you mention is a drug, available only with a physician’s prescription. The pharmacy that makes it will be happy to direct you to a physician (licensed to practice medicine in your state) who will then direct the pharmacy to provide the drug to you. This pattern is called “off-label” use: Dutasteride is FDA-approved only as an oral medication to treat PPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia) and the FDA has not approved the product you mentioned, or this particular combination of active ingredients and method of application (topical or oral), as a medicine for the purpose of treating hairloss, but an individual physician can supervise its use for an individual patient. I already said that I will not discuss off-label drug uses because they can be very dangerous and physicians assume much extra legal responsibility if something goes wrong in such a situation, as compared to when they prescribe a drug which is FDA-approved for the purpose they prescribe it for.

Again: the question here is not whether it is possible to formulate a topical with dutasteride; I already said that it is. The question is whether it is safe to use a topical such as the one you mentioned, which contains an ingredient which is orally active in extremely low concentration. In a previous posting on this thread, I explained issues such as the special need to secure near-zero reduction of systemic absorption, which is much less critical for minoxidil or other drugs which are effective in relatively large doses.

Patent laws are about who has the right to profit from an idea; FDA regulation is about how the idea may be used, whoever gets the profit; good sense is about whether what may be done should be done. These are related but independently-controlled matters.

GlaxoSmithKline started a new Phase III study on dutasteride (0.5mg) just a few years ago to test a daily dose for the treatment of MPB (male pattern baldness), but as of now there is not an FDA-approved dutasteride product for the treatment of MPB. It appears that GlaxoSmithKline is spending mega-dollars on this drug application; in return for this investment, they may believe that they acquire “some” intellectual property rights to any application(s) related to MPB uses of this compound.

As for botanical extracts: The vast majority of all currently available drugs emerged from botanical extracts. This includes some well-known controlled drugs like opium and cannabis, and some life-saving drugs like quinine and taxol, and some painkillers like aspirin, and some poisons like curare; the list is very long and additional examples are easy to find. Many of the botanicals which proved to be good drugs were given slight chemical modifications by drug companies so that they could be patented as “new chemical entities” or to increase or decrease or focus some naturally-occurring activities. These activities are responsible for the development of many synthetic or semi-synthetic drugs which are based on botanical extracts. Botanicals can be very powerful when used in adequate concentrations and combinations, and are the main form of medicines in countries like China and India (which make up about a third of the world’s population). So, there are a great many opportunities to learn and benefit from botanicals, and not much justification for risk-taking with non-FDA-approved drugs.

For the rest: I was invited here, and accepted the invitation on the understanding that my participation would be about exchange of ideas, not exchange of insults. Insults do not encourage the exchange of ideas. Expression of doubt is valid in an exchange of ideas: if you doubt the usefulness of non-medicinal formulations, please enlist the aid of your physician in exploring available medical treatments.

Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal

[Dr_Yechiel]

Hello RNORAN,

You can talk to me dirrectly rather than about me and I may give you some answers; if a question is phrased as “What do you think?” my answer, because I think a lot, may be long. My experience with customers has been that most people appreciate the opportunity to understand how things work, and don’t appreciate being spoon-fed as if they were not capable of understanding complexity. Living systems are complex; so are meaningful discussions of living systems.

If you are interested in products from other manufacturers, there are many out there and some are good products. If you are intersted in a specific product, list its ingredients and I may be able to give you some feedback on some of those ingredients.

As for endorsing our products: I do beleive in them and if I thought that other products were as good or better I would not hesitate to say so. I am not familiar with all the products on the market (no one is) so if you are intrigued by a specific product and wish to have a second opinion, just ask for that. Or if my ideas and opinions are not interesting to you, don’t ask, don’t read, and don’t be disturbed when others do.

Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal

[Pete2]

» Hello Pete,
»
» By the ingredients, the shampoo looks like a decent product. The content
» of alcohol (denatured alcohol) is low, probably less than 1%, and it
» utilizes a combination of different detergents and foam boosters which are
» likely to make it feel nice on the hair and scalp. I am not sure how much
» of the botanical extracts are actually in the product because it is not
» clear whether the extracts are inserted into the shampoo as powders or as
» liquid. If the extracts are inserted as liquids, their relatively high
» placement on the ingredient list is not indicative of their actual content
» because we don’t know their actual dilution in the liquid extract. If they
» are inserted as powders, their content is quite high by their relative
» placement and should affect the color of the shampoo significantly: it will
» be a very dark shampoo. However, they add caramel to the shampoo, which has
» a very dark color, and so it is not possible to estimate high/low content
» of the botanical extracts by color alone.
»
» The positioning of biotin quite high in the ingredient list is puzzling to
» me. For an 8oz container, they would have to use something around 2-4 grams
» of biotin to justify this placement in the order of ingredients. Pure
» biotin is an extremely expensive ingredient and such an amount of pure
» biotin may cost more than what they charge for their finished product.
» There are biotin products on the market which contain 1% biotin but are
» defined as “biotin” since the rest of the material is a starchy matrix
» which dilutes biotin for easy integration into oral vitamin formulations;
» this works for oral formulations because biotin is required in miniscule
» amounts, several micrograms in a multi-vitamin tablet or capsule. If the
» material which was used is indeed a dilution of biotin than the actual
» question “What is the dilution factor?” is pertinent. The pictures appear
» look encouraging, and if they represent the general customer experience
» rather than simply some good pictures they obtained which could exist
» regardless of any treatment these customers had, it is even more
» encouraging. My concern is that the company may be hurt by regulatory
» institutions because they make direct medicinal claims on their shampoo. I
» don’t know if their shampoo is a medicinal shampoo but hairloss/hairgrowth
» claims are only approved for topical minoxidil and I did not notice
» minoxidil in the ingredient list of that shampoo. I believe that customers
» who like the products of that company and wish them to be sold for a long
» time should tell them about this concern. I know how tempting it is to make
» medicinal claims and how hard it is to resist them especially if I know
» that a product is absolutely marvelous, but I believe that this is going to
» change only to be stricter. Overall it looks like a decent shampoo and it
» is priced quite reasonably, provided that the botanical extracts and biotin
» are indeed present in significant concentrations.
»
» Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
» President
» Elsom Research Co., Inc.
» email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
» voice: 210.493.5225
» paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
» online:
» http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in
» skincare
» http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order
» retail products
» http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
» http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal

What we all want is a Topical that slows hairloss and promotes regrowth. Have you got or are you aware of any NEW natural Topicals in the pipeline which may hairloss topically??

what modes of action do you think we need to address in hairloss topically to promote growth?

Regards
Pete

[mj2003]

Dr. Yechiel, to some minoxidil liquid causes a puffy/bloated face. I’m not sure if it’s water retention or what the science behind it is, but I’m experiencing this side effect.

If I were to switch to minoxidil foam is it likely that the puffyness will go away?

And is there an alternative to the minoxidil 5% (or greater) that will produce equal, if not better, results but without the puffy face?

And thanks to for your input to all the previous posts; very helpful.

[Dr_Yechiel]

Hello Pete2,

Thank you for your question. Starting this afternoon, I will be out for 3 days and will address any pending questions or comments which are addressed to me on this forum during this weekend.

[Dr_Yechiel]

Hello mj2003,

Thank you for your question. Starting this afternoon, I will be out for 3 days and will address any pending questions or comments which are addressed to me on this forum during this weekend.

[Bryan]

» Hello, Bryan,
»
» You have clarified an important issue by saying that experiments such as
» transplanting miniaturized hair follicles into a scalp area with
» healthy-looking hair and follicles (in humans) or to a very nearby location
» within the scalp are in which only vellus hair or no hair at all is growing
» have been performed. Thank you for providing this information and I would
» ask if you also can provide several references which document such
» experiments and results.

Here’s the full citation for Norman Orentreich’s 1959 study which got the ball rolling for human hair transplantation: “Autografts in alopecias and other selected dermatological conditions”, Ann NY Acad Sci 83:463-479, 1959.

I also recommend this fascinating study: “Synchronous balding of scalp and hair-bearing grafts of scalp transplanted to the skin of the arm in male pattern baldness”, Nordstrom RE, Acta Derm Venereol 1979;59(3):266-8. After transplanting hair follicles from the frontal scalp of a young man to his arm, the transplanted hair follicles continued to go bald, right on schedule. These experiments clearly show that androgenetic alopecia displays donor dominance.

» In particular I am interested in experiments where
» single individual hair follicles were transplanted, because transplanting
» larger slices of skin with many hairs from one area of scalp to another is
» very different from transplanting individual hair as far as modifying the
» environment of the follicle. Transplanting a large slice of scalp tissue
» to another location of the scalp maintains the original surrounding
» environment of the hair follicles. It is like moving a flower pot from one
» area on the porch to another area on the porch. Nothing has changed for the
» plants which are growing in that pot, provided that the light conditions
» are similar. However, if you take a plant out of a pot, wash away the
» original dirt down to the bare roots, and plant it into a new pot and
» different dirt, you have significantly changed the conditions and the
» immediate environment in which that plant is growing.

I doubt that the above cited studies will meet your rigorous demands, because they both involve large punch grafts (especially those in the Orentreich study). However, I personally just can’t believe that the surrounding skin tissue in large grafts really has anything to do with balding. You and I will probably have to agree to disagree on that.

» The experiment in the mice alone is already a 6 on the Richter scale,
» proving beyond a doubt that “bad follicles” are recoverable. This was a
» notion held by quite a few scientists and I have suggested an aging model
» for loss of functioning of hair follicles which is indeed a multi-factorial
» model (which includes inflammation as a contributing factor), so that as
» long as follicles are alive they are potentially recoverable. However, few
» experiments prove things. Most of experiments provide supporting data or
» indications but the term “to prove” is not common in science. In the
» experiment with the mice they actually proved that miniaturized follicles
» are recoverable. This is the only point they actually proved in the
» experiment, but a very important point. The only question is if the human
» scalp is naturally capable, or can be conditioned to become capable, of
» supporting recovery of miniaturized follicles, but there is not a question
» any more as to whether miniaturized follicles can recover; that was
» unilaterally answered.

I should point out here one small issue in that mouse study which may be important: the hair follicles (both balding and non-balding) that were transplanted onto the immune-deficient mice didn’t FULLY regrow hair to the full size of normal human terminal hairs. The authors of that study were careful to mention that the backs of mice (even immune-deficient ones) aren’t fully hospitable places to grow human hair. They said that even normal NON-BALDING hair follicles are stunted in growth when transplanted onto mice, but the point is that both balding and non-balding hair follicles were EQUALLY STUNTED in their experiment. I still think we should be cautious here, and not jump to the conclusion that all balding hair follicles have the potential for full recovery. We don’t even know for sure that that’s what happened under their highly unusual experimental conditions.

» Inflammation is an immune response of a certain type, but the entire
» immune system entails more factors. There is no proof in this article that
» the immune system is the reason for follicle recovery. The use of nude mice
» is coincidental (selected to prevent rejection of the implant) and if
» indeed that special feature of supporting follicle recovery happened by
» that same lucky coincidence by which the selected mice had to be without
» functioning immune systems is still as questionable after that experiment
» as before it. Do people who received new organ transplants and have to be
» continuously injected with immune-system depressants grow more hair then
» other people? Do people with AIDS, with a defective immune system, grow
» more hair (for example, when they refuse to take drugs which may also
» contribute to hair loss just like cancer drugs do)? Do people who take
» anti-inflammatory medicines grow new hair that gives a nice scalp coverage?

Those are interesting questions, especially the one about AIDS patients. I wish we had solid answers to those questions! However, we do know that Orentreich did do an early study which found no beneficial effects on hair loss from topical corticosteroid drugs. Obviously, that seems to be a strike against the “immune system” theory of balding.

[Dr_Yechiel]

Hello mj2003,

Minoxidil originated as a drug for treating high blood pressure and a peculiar side effect was noted during its use; it grew hair. And so, the rest is history.

Many drugs for high blood pressure affect water retention. Usually they reduce water retention, as do the diuretic drugs. Other drugs affect enlargement of blood vessels (including the nitro-based products or NO releasers) by relaxing them and allowing more blood flow, which in return reduces the heavy load on the heart and the blood pressure is reduced. Other drugs directly affect the heart rate by reducing the intervals between contractions, which also leads to reduction in blood pressure. Minoxidil is a drug of the second group: it relaxes blood vessels and thus increases their blood capacity and flow and reduces the heart’s exertion.

It is not clear how minoxidil works in growing hair. If indeed minoxidil regrows hair because it sends more blood to the hair follicles, wouldn’t other blood pressure reducing drugs with a similar mechanism of action grow new hair as well? Moreover, drugs which reduce blood pressure are usually associated with reduction of puffiness and water retention.

There may be 3 possible explanations for this:

1. The puffiness is not directly related to the minoxidil product even if you believe that they occur simultaneously.
2. The puffiness is related to a possible allergy or other type of reaction by your body to minoxidil.
3. The puffiness is related to ingredients in the formula other then minoxidil.

To rule out the first 2 possibilities it is not enough to guess: you have to sort this out with your medical practitioner and have some tests if necessary.

If everything is fine regarding the minoxidil itself, you can select different formulations with “other ingredients” which are different than in your current product. Foam is not just more cosmetically attractive but it has a better surface-to-volume packing of the minoxidil than liquid products with carrier phases (not necessarily better than products where minoxidil is loaded into vehicles). If the problem is persistent after you switch to foam you can try vehicle-loaded monoxidil but you should verify that they are indeed vehicles (with the capacity of moving into the skin) and not just encapsulates (which can also remain on top of the skin). If you have a specific product in mind I may be able to help in sorting out the mystery of the ingredient list for you so we can see if there are vehicles in the formulation and maybe assess their size.

As for other options (other than minoxidil), there is not another topical drug (which means a molecule which is approved as a topical drug for this purpose) which is currently available. If you wish to use off-label topical drugs (drugs which are approved orally but not topically or approved for other diseases) you have to consult your medical practitioner to find a manufacturer that is involved in such practices and also to get a prescription.

There is of course another way, to use topicals which don’t contain drugs but contain other ingredients which are beneficial to scalp. Legally such products cannot be offered as a replacement for minoxidil. I cannot advise you to stop using a drug (minoxidil); only your medical practitioner can. I also cannot say that any other products will grow hair because it is again a medicinal claim and as such it has to be first endorsed by the regulatory authorities for that purpose. If you decide to stop using minoxidil or to replace it with topicals with natural beneficial ingredients for calming and relaxing the scalp, there are many potential products which can do some good in that area.

I will list several ingredients which are very beneficial to the scalp. Many ingredients were proven to be effective in growing hair under valid laboratory conditions but none were challenged by FDA protocols which means that even if scientifically valid they are still not legally valid. Nevertheless they are great ingredients and they don’t have side effects like the hairgrowth medicines and they are very beneficial to the scalp and they are not intended to compete with any medicine or replace it.

You can use:
– Products with ingredients which can help remove some dead scalp layers.
– Products with ingredients which are known to help build collagen when given as an injection into the skin.
– Products with natural botanical extracts which are reported to help glucose assimilation in laboratory tests or to help diabetics in Eastern medicine.
– Products with natural botanical extracts which are reported in laboratory tests to possess anti-aging qualities.
– Products with natural botanical extracts which are reported in laboratory tests to possess anti-apoptotic qualities.
– Products with natural botanical extracts which are reported in laboratory tests or in Eastern medicine to possess blood-vessel-relaxing qualities.
– Products with natural botanical extracts which are reported in laboratory tests to reduce the conversion of testosterone to DHT.
– Products with natural botanical extracts which are reported in laboratory tests to stimulate stem cells.
– Products with natural botanical extracts which are reported in laboratory tests or in Eastern medicine to alleviate inflammatory stress or defy inflammatory precursors.

We receive many questions along these lines, and we are planning a thorough discussion, relating ingredients to what is known about their relevant effects, in the next issue of the Journal of Topical Formulations, which should be published in May. For now, here is a partial list of beneficial ingredients which also relate to the above product categories:

curcumin
cinnamon
resveratrol
kinetin
monolaurin
adenosine
arginine
taurine
carnosine
alpha lipoic acid
royal jelly
phosphatidylcholine Nanosomes™
ascorbic acid in its oil- or water-soluble form (known as Vitamin C when taken orally)
D-alpha-tocopherol (known as Vitamin E when taken orally)
retinol (known as Vitamin A when taken orally)
salicylic acid
green coffee extract
green tea extract or EGCG [Epigallocatechin gallate]
apple-peel or mutamba bark [Guazuma ulmifolia] (polyphenols)
other botanical extracts (the list is so large that it is impossible to list them all here but if you inquire about a specific botanical I will try list its known and suspected benefits
other ingredients (known as Vitamins B1, B6, D2, D3, niacin when taken orally and many others)
carrier oils and essential oils
many other ingredients

The best approach is not to rely on products with a single ingredient which was reported in laboratory tests to possess a certain activity. It is much more beneficial to have several such ingredients.

It is not the best idea to have the most active ingredient for a certain purpose at maximum concentration. It is much more beneficial to have several such ingredients below the maximum activity of each. They will work in synergy and together produce remarkable benefits.

Avoid ingredients which are active in extremely small concentrations; it may be unwise to use such ingredients. You cannot add all the ingredients in one product; customers ask very often about this, but ingredient selection and integration has some limits. Instead, you can select several products which, used in combination, can cover the ingredients spectrum.

Again, just because natural botanical extracts have been reported to do something in laboratory tests or in Eastern medicine does not mean that their effects will be duplicated in a topical product. Nor is it the purpose to duplicate the effects. The purpose is to group ingredients of interest and logical relevancy to be compatible with less-than-perfect scalp conditions and to soothe the scalp.

Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal

[Dr_Yechiel]

Hello Pete2,

In my reply to mj2003, I addressed a large part of your current question as well and you can take a look at it.

As for your question as to whether we have more products on the pipeline: we do have new products coming up at a relatively speedy pace. We have introduced 4 new products for scalp in the last 6 months and one more will come up during this month. Our new products are not replacements of the older ones: they have new features and are complimentary to the previous products. We announce new products on our blog at http://www.nanosomin.com/news/.

Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal

[moximus]

Dr. Yechiel,

Hey, I was interested in making a topical from your formulator but I was wondering if you were going to add apigenin, it was very successful in the Huh et al. study (2009). I noticed you had added curcumin a while ago and these together act quite nicely.

I know you can get high quality apigenin from A&G scientific, link to follow
http://www.agscientific.com/Item/A1108.htm

For further referencing you can read this study.

Huh S, Lee J, Jung E, Kim SC, Kang JI, Lee J, Kim YW, Sung YK, Kang HK, Park D. (2009) A cell-based system for screening hair growth-promoting agents. Archives of dermatological research

[Jacob]

» Hello Pete2,
»
» In my reply to mj2003, I addressed a large part of your current question
» as well and you can take a look at it.
»
» As for your question as to whether we have more products on the pipeline:
» we do have new products coming up at a relatively speedy pace. We have
» introduced 4 new products for scalp in the last 6 months and one more will
» come up during this month. Our new products are not replacements of the
» older ones: they have new features and are complimentary to the previous
» products. We announce new products on our blog at
» http://www.nanosomin.com/news/.
»

Dr. Yechiel,

I noticed the updates to the shampoo a few days ago. Would it be possible for people to sign up for email alerts for the news, and even articles etc? I do check the pages from time to time…but sometimes time flies in-between the checking.

[Dr_Yechiel]

Hello

Indeed, curcumin plus apigenin plus luteolin (the 3 yellows) work very well together. In addition, luteolin and apigenin are chemically very similar molecules. Not only in that they are both flavonoids but they are very similar in structure. As for activity, the 3 yellows have been claimed to have a very similar activity range, though there are differences in the more specific aspects of their related activities. Al 3 are apoptotic to cancer cells and that raised concern among users for scalp related applications as to whether it would also terminate the anagen phase of cells which are supposed to grow hair. I did address this issue recently in response to a question by a customer who ordered a commercial-size curcumin batch. I found that the apoptotic effect of curcumin was not reported to occur in normal cells but was reported in many research articles for cancer cells. I would assume that the other 2 molecules, luteolin and apigenin, are not apoptotic to normal cells as well but I did not perform a thorough search of the literature for those 2. It appears that like many actives they don’t elevate or decrease bio-cycles when normal but respond to abnormal behavior in the bio-cycles.

Can we formulate it? Yes, we can. I would recommend adding resveratrol to the formulation to be on the safe side as it is a potent anti-apoptotic ingredient. Curcumin and luteolin are already available at The Formulator (if you wish to add any of them) and we can get apigenin-enriched (and standardized at 1%) chamomile extract. The source you refer to is for high-purity apigenin. I did not check with them yet but it sells for about $1,000 per gram from other sources which sell high purity material. As a comparison, 1 gram apigenin which is the equivalent of 100 grams apigenin-enriched (and standardized at 1%) chamomile extract will cost less than $50. The high purification process makes ingredients expensive. As for high quality, it is very important but not the same as high purity. There are ingredients which are better used at high purity; for example, ingredients which are used at high concentration in the formulation such as phosphatidylcholine in many of our formulations. For ingredients which are used in small quantities it is not always very important to use high-purity ingredients. One good reason is that a topical contains many ingredients and in the end you take a high-purity ingredient and mix (dilute) it with other ingredients and the result is again a low-purity ingredient which defeats the purpose, though may be necessary in some cases.

If you wish to proceed, you can send us an email describing your ingredient list and technical questions if you have any and we will check the cost of different sources of apigenin so we may get the best and least expensive option.

I have not yet have a chance to read the study you referenced.

Thank you.

Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal

[Dr_Yechiel]

Hello Jacob,

Thank you for pointing this out; we added some information to the blog to explain how to use this feature. When you open our blog now at http://nanosomin.com/news/ you will notice a button entitled “Subscribing”; when you click on it, you will open http://nanosomin.com/news/?page_id=30 (or you can go directly to the “Subscribing” page from this link). On the “Subscribing” page there are instructions as to how to monitor our RSS feeds so you can be notified every time we make a change to the blog; the same method will work for the Topical Formulations forum at http://skincare-cosmeceuticals.com/formulations/. The “Subscribing” page illustrates how this looks in the Firefox browser; other browsers look a bit different but accomplish the same thing.

Thank you again.

Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal

[Pete2]

Hi Dr

Although PROXIPHEN has been around for some time I really like the modes of action that this topical addresses ie SOD, Nitric oxide etc…

What are your thoughts on the ingredient list?

onlyhairloss.com

Regards
Pete

[Dr_Yechiel]

Hello Bryan,

Two of the articles you referenced are very old articles and have not yet been made available for online viewing, so there is a delay while I order them from the library and wait to receive them. Today I received the 1959 Orentreich paper. When I receive the 1979 Nordstrom article I will see if there is anything there which contradicts the notions that the acceptor tissue is relevant to a successful transplantation or that miniaturized follicles can recover.

As for the 1959 Orentreich paper, he actually makes a clear distinction between donor/acceptor tissue and follicles. He claims that donor dominance is reflected in the “tissue” and he states the necessity for the tissue to be at full thickness for a viable transplant. As for the follicles themselves, he states that the article “suggests” that MPB should be attributed to the follicles themselves. In fact, the most you can derive from this article is that it does not contradict the possibility that follicles may be preset for MPB, but the article by no means suggests that. Dr. Orentreich (still active as of 2008) is quite a remarkable guy and is also heavily involved with Clinique. His son is also involved with Clinique as their guiding dermatologist and their concepts about hair growth appear to be affecting much of the concepts involved in formulation and commercialization of hair and scalp products. In my opinion his 2003 article is important because it appears to contradict some of the conclusions in his 1959 article and some important concepts about hairloss which he advocated for a long time.

When you say that you can’t believe that the surrounding skin tissue in large grafts really has anything to do with balding, I take it that you don’t mean it in the extreme that the surrounding tissue is completely irrelevant to hair growth, but rather as an expression which carries little weight for the role of the surrounding tissue. So, the question is to what degree the surrounding tissue is relevant or irrelevant. I believe that the degree of relevancy of the surrounding tissue is critical and I believe that it is clearly illustrated in the 2003 Krajcik-Orentreich article where human hairs were individually transplanted into mouse skin. High relevancy of the surrounding tissue is actually backed up by resolving the apparent contradiction between the Nordstrom article (based on your summary of it) and the 2003 Krajcik-Orentreich, which I will discuss below.

Bear in mind that Orentreich’s 1959 paper with his theory of “donor’s dominance” was published at a time when knowledge about genetic factors in general and environmental factors in particular was not very advanced. In the 1950s, scientists were still struggling with theories about the structure of cell membranes and the structure of DNA and knew almost nothing about genes. The development in studies of environmental factors in biology is recent and even nowadays it is only at the beginning of the road. I would rephrase the older terminology “donor’s dominance” versus “acceptor’s dominance” into a different structure: “genetic relevancy” versus “environmental relevancy”. On the basis of this phrasing, I would state that the genetic makeup (say, of a follicle) will determine its potential (the color of the hair, the maximum thickness and length of the hair, etc.) while the environmental factors will determine how much of the genetic potential will be expressed in reality and which aspects will be fully developed or under developed. When you look at hair transplantation with this view in mind, the tissue around the transplanted follicle (also from the donor) acts as an environmental support for the follicle itself. Therefore, the question of whether the follicle is surrounded by donor’s tissue (as in large skin grafts) or by the acceptor’s tissue (individual follicle grafts which will eventually be surrounded by the host tissue) becomes very critical. We know that a tree which can grow 100 feet tall can be made into a 1-foot bonsai tree because it is subjected to environmental limitations which prevent it from reaching its full potential as described in its genetic makeup; there are many other examples. Interaction is another level which relates to both genetic and environmental factors via feedback of hormones, growth factors, innervations, blood supply, and just name it, which depends very much on the environment (surrounding tissue) but also on the ability of the follicle itself to register such signals, assimilate them, receive adequate nutrition, physical space, and send feedback to the environment to produce more of some kinds of molecules or less of another kind of molecules. This is an area where complexity is vast and it also requires the surrounding tissue to comply and reciprocate with signals or back-signals sent by the follicle. If there is a blockage or a rupture where signals are blocked or flow is unregulated, or if there are mechanical/structural changes of the surrounding tissue (thinning of the skin in which space the follicle is embedded), the follicle will begin to experience less than perfect conditions which will perpetuate and deteriorate with every feedback cycle until the imperfection is visible to the eye in the form of a miniaturized follicle and with loss of some of its functions including the ability to grow full-size hairs.

If the second article you mentioned - the 1979 Nordstrom article - is as you summarized, that follicles from a bald area which were planted in the arm of the same person (no concern about rejection) remain bald and on the other hand in the 2003 Krajcik-Orentreich the individual follicles (individually trimmed from already tiny-2mm scalp sections) succeeded to grow and to develop into nice terminal hair in the skin of a mouse which is very different from the follicle’s origin (human scalp), I would say that it strongly indicates that there is a fundamental difference between large skin grafts and individual follicles. We can also look within the surrounding tissue for reasons of better or worse hair growth and assume for most cases that the follicles themselves are recoverable. The difference between the results in the 2 articles is in the environment or immediate tissue which surrounds the follicle. You are right that normal follicles in that experiment expressed thinner than usual hairs but the miniaturized follicles actually expressed larger and well-developed terminal hairs as compared to their performance on the original human scalp. The other interesting issue is that both normal and miniaturized follicles grew hair of similar thickness and length. The miniaturized follicles recovered to the same level as the normal follicles retreated. So why don’t they grow like perfect hair on a perfect scalp? Since mouse skin may not be the ideal environment for growing human hair the normal follicles did not perform as well as they did in the more ideal human scalp, while the mouse skin was still more accommodating to the miniaturized follicles than their original human scalp. As mentioned above, environment determines how much of the genetic potential will be realized. In an experiment where normal follicles were grown in culture, they developed for about 11-17 days before they stopped. So, mouse skin is more supportive of human hair follicles than tissue culture, and maybe if a similar experiment can be done on pig skin (which is very similar to human skin) or on human skin, the environmental support conditions might be even better. If several different animals or other systems which support normal follicle growth will also support miniaturized follicle recovery to the extent of normal follicles, but will differ in the final results from each other (each animal model or system will allow different hair length, thickness, etc., but will not discriminate between individual follicles, normal or miniaturized), it will settle the follicle recovery issue and will allow acceptor models for viable transplant which can be further tested for effects of different chemical on various growth parameters. However, one thing is clear from the 2003 Krajcik-Orentreich article: miniaturized follicles recovered to the extend that they started to grow normal hairs (indeed, under less than perfect conditions, but growing nevertheless, which means that they are recoverable).

In my previous response I posed the question of whether drugs which are meant to attenuate the immune system (like after kidney transplant) grow hair. Well, indeed they do and I was hoping for such comments. Cyclosporine, an immune suppressor is known for its nasty side-effects on kidneys and liver. In some individuals it causes hair growth all over the body and the scalp (hirsutism) for a certain time period. However, it grows hair also on nude mice which have defective immune systems, which indicates that the hair growth mechanism is not due to the suppression of the immune system but via another molecular mechanism which is actually under advanced study. It is not to say that the immune system is irrelevant to hairloss, quite the contrary. It is to say that the term “immune system” is too large for this purpose. Inflammation can contribute to scalp scarring and related hairloss. There may be other relevant immunodeficiencies but a direct connection between the immune system and hairloss is still to be demonstrated.

Thank you again for your input.

Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal

[moximus]

I see you’ve recently added KGF to the formulator.

What are the chances your going to be adding more growth factors that we ourselves can forumalte. I know most of these are pretty large and not permeable into the skin. Wouldn’t nano-encapsulation help this?

Could you provide them as cheaply as A&G skin serum?

[Dr_Yechiel]

Hello Pete2,

In my opinion the product you mentioned is based on the logic and strategy of a minoxidil mimetic, with some extras as a side dish. The ingredient 3-Pyridinecarboxylic acid is in my opinion the center of the product which is a step forward from the older version of the famous “Helsinki formula” having also the N=O chemical group in addition to the blood-vessel relaxing effect of niacin which is also known as a “flushing” effect. The ingredients in the link you provided are scattered rather than being organized into descending order (as they must be on a product label) and it is hard to make heads or tails of them. From a formulating point of view, it is a simple and reasonable product (if I guess correctly the order of the ingredients). If you provide me with a list of ingredients from an actual product label they will be in descending order and I will be better able to assess the formulation as a whole in certain respects. The important question is of course, does it work? I don’t know the answer though there may be some answers if the product has been out on the market for some time as you said. I also hate to guess on something that can already be verified by factual data but I believe that if it indeed works it will address population similar to the minoxidil responders: if minoxidil works well for someone, so probably will this product. Mechanistically, it should work but there may be some un-optimized chemical and physical aspects about this molecule which I will not discuss in this forum. Overall, it appears to be a product which can benefit certain people to a certain degree but even minoxidil is far from being a miracle drug or even a great drug, otherwise this forum would not exist, would it? There were quite a few past attempts in this direction but none went all the way to FDA approval as hairloss treatments. There are other molecular candidates which in my opinion can theoretically work as well as minoxidil (maybe better) and may be more optimized than 3-Pyridinecarboxylic acid and with some added features, and which are not drugs. Since we are developing new products on a regular basis and having a new one coming soon, what I said in this regard should suffice.

Thank you.

Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal

[Dr_Yechiel]

Hello moximus,

Growth factors which are protein-based are very large and could penetrate into skin pores with the help of special supporting vehicles but would not penetrate into intact skin surface. Since many skin functions, including growing hair-shafts, are located at the pores, they may still be beneficial despite their large size. The more important problem is their relatively short post-formulation shelf life. Because of their exponential decay, we add 4X more of the growth factors than is necessary so that you can get 4-6 months full-potency use and another 3-4 months of reasonable potency use. We developed vehicles which protect the active proteins from their tendencies of fast decay. Our baseline for growth factor potency is much larger than what growth factor manufacturers commonly suggest because you have to account for a reduction in actives’ concentration as the penetration reaches deeper levels of skin even when you use highly potent vehicles. There are many other issues to account for but they are proprietary issues. Over all, we add an order of magnitude more protein than the common suggested base-line by the manufacturer. The cost of these proteins is gigantic and as I told a customer before, the cost has to go down by at least an order of magnitude before it can be used in commercial products. I don’t know how much protein is added by different companies, do you? I believe that it has an effect on the price of the finished product.

As for the product you mentioned, yes, we provide them as cheaply as their products. To match their price, we will have to sell our KGF products for 2-4 times higher than we do now. They sell 0.25oz for $120, so for the 2oz bottle we sell we should charge $960? Another product they sell for $199 for 0.6oz, so for a 2oz bottle should we charge $633? Did I miss something here, or opened the wrong website with the wrong prices? It is simply an expensive ingredient with the expected results of an expensive finished product. As to the question of whether we can add other growth factors: we can, but we don’t believe in keeping an inventory of very expensive, seldom-used ingredients. If you contact us for any specific ingredient which we don’t have currently in stock, we can find out its availability and cost. We have good experience with formulating related proteins including many which are not mentioned in The Formulator by improving their shelf-life and penetration, and The Formulator is the most reasonable and viable option for such ingredients.

Thank you.

Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
email: innovation@elsomresearch.com
voice: 210.493.5225
paper mail: 4510 Black Hickory Woods, San Antonio, TX, USA, 78249
online:
http://www.elsomresearch.com/ — to learn about nanotechnologies in skincare
http://www.new-equilibrium-skincare.com/cosmeceuticals/ — to order retail products
http://www.the-formulator.com/ — to order personalized products
http://www.topical-formulations.com/ — to read the Journal