RejuvePlex Hair Loss and Anti-Aging Serum Information

Mr. Furley,

Thanks for the feedback!

You should be happy to know that the new batch (4th batch) is back to the "milky gray" color. The initial batch that you purchased was the 2nd batch that contained a free sample that I was given from the company that I purchased a good chunk of our actives from. That sample was "Nano-Lipobelle H-AECL". Additionally, our usual nano silver was used in that formula. Due to customs issues, we were unable to obtain our usual nano silver for the 3rd batch, and had to use another kind that wasn't nanosomal. This resulted in the brown-orangish color, and more oily/less absorbtive feeling.

That said, this new batch now contains 100% more Nano-Lipobelle H-AECL than did the 2nd batch (the 2nd batch % was restricted by the amount of sample that we were given), and the original Nano Silver is back in the formula and this time at 100 PPM instead of the usual 50 PPM. Personally, I am VERY happy with this latest iteration from an application perspective, and hope that others will feel the same!

Thank you for the info!

I'll be ordering some of the new batch this week!

Since you recently doubled the concentration of nano silver in the formula, I thought you might want to see this:

http://blogs.rsc.org/ra/2012/08/06/silver-is-just-as-toxic-to-human-cells-as-it-is-to-bacteria/
The actual study is here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2oyZuS-j-Y0MW9NbXZZSEFkd0U

Apparently, silver nanoparticles are toxic to human cells at the same concentration that make them toxic to bacteria... Which would make them somewhat ineffective (and potentially harmful) for skin care purposes, as you can't get one effect without the other. If there isn't a need for it, doubling the concentration (above the level at which it is toxic) may not have been the best idea... I'd be worried about potentially damaging cells in the scalp, or on the skin.

Honestly, while I think RejuvePlex is a pretty nice product and definitely offers a unique alternative to other products, I'm hesitant to use it when it contains something that's generally considered to be toxic, and doesn't seem to really add much to the product in functional terms. I doubt it's going to do anything for hair, anyway.

Ibrium,

That study is golden.

I'm going to think seriously about over use of silver.

Taking new info into consideration and modifying where it's smart is what it's about.

But it is interesting that the previous Rejuveplex formula was successful for some people in helping the hair despite the silver issue. Maybe the other ingredients off set the negative effect to a certain degree?

I don't know how many people have had really good results with Rejuveplex yet... But if it's helping people, that's not surprising. I doubt the effect of the silver is enough to completely outweigh all of the other ingredients. It's more likely to be harmful in a different way, especially if it's used over a long period of time.

Hi Ibrium,

Sorry for the late reply. I'll pass this on to CS to get his opinion. There is and has been a pretty concerted effort by the medical-industrial complex to diminish the utility of silver in health application for a couple decades now, so I'm always wary when I see a study purporting that it's bad for us when it's helped so many people. But, if it turns out that it isn't good to have in the formula, then we'll remove it from the next batch and lower the price of the formula a bit to compensate

Either way, thank you for bringing it to our attention!

nidhogge wrote:Hi Ibrium,

Sorry for the late reply. I'll pass this on to CS to get his opinion. There is and has been a pretty concerted effort by the medical-industrial complex to diminish the utility of silver in health application for a couple decades now, so I'm always wary when I see a study purporting that it's bad for us when it's helped so many people. But, if it turns out that it isn't good to have in the formula, then we'll remove it from the next batch and lower the price of the formula a bit to compensate

Either way, thank you for bringing it to our attention!

Some thoughts:

1) It's only one study
2) The dose makes the poison - so maybe reducing back to 50ppm makes sense?
3) If it was removed, what would it be replaced with that would act a preservative? Most of the commonly used preservatives (ie parabens, alcohol) have serious drawbacks.

Regarding safety of nano silver. Note that this should not be confused with silver nitrate or with inhaled nano particulate silver, which do have safety issues.

Whether there is a risk of 100 ppm of nano silver is so far unlikely to present a problem. Perhaps the real question is, 100 ppm more effective than 50 ppm? My guess is probably not much more effective. Regardless, it appears safe (read further).

Per EPA Registration, American Biotech Labs was provided registration after having completed
thousands of antimicrobial tests meeting strict guidelines. Those
products have 10-minute-kill-time claims for both home and hospital
disinfection against deadly pathogens like staph, yeast, and black mold, etc.
The products have also been approved for disinfecting dental water lines used
to spray into human mouths, as well as heating and ventilation systems for
home and industrial use.

Each EPA approved product is required to have safety information, and
according to that information a toxic spill or EPA reportable spill amount is
required to be printed in the product MSDS sheet (Material Safety Data
Sheet). For example, a chlorine-type cleaning product (found for open
purchase on store shelves right now) has a toxic spill rating of about three
gallons, meaning that a spill of three gallons or more must be reported to the
EPA and handled by HAZMAT authorities. In comparison, American

With respect to human cells:

A number of independent cyto-toxicity tests have been completed on
nano-silver products. At both 10 and 22 ppm, the
products were found to do no damage at all to either human or monkey cells,
meaning that they were found completely non-cyto-toxic. ASAP nano-silver
gel products were tested for cyto-toxicity at both 24 and 32 ppm by an
independent FDA/EPA approved lab. According to FDA guidelines, the
cyto-toxicity is reported on a scale of 1-4 (4 being highly cyto-toxic and 1
being very safe for use). Both the 24 and 32ppm ASAP nano-silver products
were deemed in the testing to be a level 1, in other words having little or no
negative effect on the skin.

Ingested Nano Silver Toxicity Studies

Some of the studies, such as LD-50 tests on animals at levels equivalent to approximately
200 times the normal internal use adult dosage were found to be non-toxic to
the animals. A 28-day bird flu study completed by a U.S. NIH virology lab
also included a toxicity study in which the animals were fed levels of the
nano-silver at 10-200 times the normal dosage daily. The ASAP nano-silver
products were found to be non-toxic to the animals in the long term study.

A separate medical college study tested the ingestion of American Biotech
Labs nano-silver product in animals at levels of 0.5 ml, 1.0 ml, and 1.5 ml
daily for 28 days, and again found the product completely non-toxic to the
animals. An Indian (WHO approved) lab tested the ASAP nano-silver
products for toxicity in a mouse-model study at levels of 50, 500, 5,000
mg/kg. The product was again found to be completely non-toxic to the
animals at all levels tested in the Indian study. A peer-reviewed preliminary
HIV Human study found that the oral ingestion of 2 ounces daily for four
months of the 10 ppm ASAP nano-silver product, had no negative effect on
the seven human patients. A U.S. Congressional Testimony outlines the use
of the ASAP nano-silver product at between 0.5-1.0 ounce daily use at 10
ppm, for human use of the product against malaria and other human ailments
(120+ cases). In all cases, no negative effects were reported from any of the
four hospitals and clinics that tested the product, by either external or internal
use (mostly internal use).

Injected Nano- Silver Toxicity Studies

Two injected mouse model studies have been completed testing the ASAP
nano-silver products at a level of 50 mg/kg, at both 10 and 32 ppm levels.
Both studies found the products to be completely non-toxic to the test
animals.

scottyc33 wrote:
1) It's only one study
2) The dose makes the poison - so maybe reducing back to 50ppm makes sense?
3) If it was removed, what would it be replaced with that would act a preservative? Most of the commonly used preservatives (ie parabens, alcohol) have serious drawbacks.

1) It's not the first study to suggest problems with silver in humans. And for both this and any others, blaming the "medical-industrial complex" is irrelevant ad hominem. (Obviously there's a theoretical profit motive for a lot of people, but motive =/= guilt, and it doesn't invalidate any specific study. Also, those who sell silver products have their own profit motives.) What matters is whether the methodology and results are scientifically valid. One good study may be enough for that.

2) According to the study, even 50ppm would be too high. I agree with this in principle, though, or perhaps even going down lower (such as 25ppm). I never understood the justification for doubling the amount.

3) I'm not sure of all the ingredients in RejuvePlex yet (waiting for mine to arrive), but I would have thought there was at least one other preservative in there. That said, the preservatives commonly used by the cosmetics industry are technically all safer than silver, because they do what they're supposed to - at the concentrations used, they are toxic to bacteria, but not to humans (which would require a much greater amount). Because silver is toxic to bacteria and humans at the same concentration, then it can't really be a safe and effective preservative - lower it enough to be safe for humans, and it won't work as a preservative anymore. Raise it high enough to work as a preservative, and it's harmful to humans. It would be incredibly hard to find a balance that we know for a fact is completely safe.

The evidence in the above post all seems to refer to lower concentrations than 50ppm. And RejuvePlex currently has 100ppm. And I don't know if any of those studies looked at really long term effects.

There does seem to be some conflict in what ranges might be toxic or not - it probably depends on the studies themselves being done in different ways, as I doubt any two are looking at exactly the same thing. I'm not sure what would be the most relevant here.

I'm also a little bit concerned about the environmental issues that silver might be causing. Even if it's a tiny amount, all these things coming from different sources can accumulate over time.

Based on animal research, most silver is eliminated from the body in two days.

Cumulative excretion ranged from 90 to 99% on the second day after ingestion, with less than 1% of the dose being retained in less than 1 week in monkeys, rats and mice per EPA.

One interesting note (not related to hair), for companies that use very large amounts of nano silver, there is a microorganism called Euglena has been shown to remove industrial size amounts from waste water in rapid time.

Ibrium--

Based on what CS has provided information-wise, it's safe to assume that nano-silver at the concentration that we use is completely safe. Here are a few points:

1) As CS pointed out, even at 32 PPM, nano silver still had the absolute lowest rating of "1". PPM means Particles Per Million...that's just 100 particles of silver for every 999,900 particles of water. In the entire bottle of RejuvePlex, that's I believe .0001% of silver. Whether it's 32 or 68 more particles per million in addition, it wouldn't be a cause for alarm.

2) People have been ingesting silver at levels far above 100 PPM and well into the thousands for centuries, with no side-effects. If human cell damage was a concern, it'd be realized internally far more so than topically, and to date, the only side-effect publicized is the fella who basically turned himself into a smurf by making his own home-brew of colloidal (not nano) silver.

3) Trying to use the whole "don't blame the medical-industrial complex" bit doesn't really work with silver. Silver has been and continued to be assaulted by the FDA, it's one of their largest targets. Why? Because it essentially eliminates the need for antibiotic drugs--they would ban it if they could, but they can't find any negative side-effect associated with it. Depending on the concentration, nano silver can eliminate just about any ailment, up to and including things on the level of Lyme disease. I'm reading that PDF from the supposed "Friends of the Earth" trying to blast nano-silver saying it will disrupt the eco system and destroy good bacteria...are they completely ignorant of the antibiotics that people consistently dump into our water supply via excrement and other forms of waste? How about all of the harmful inorganic pesticides? Fluoridation of the water supply? If anything, silver will take care of the bacteria that still exists in the supply, though it won't, because the amount in the actual supply (and soil for that matter) will be so incredibly insignificant. Even then, as CS pointed out, Euglena can easily clean up silver particles.

4) The studies they're citing are done in vitro. Sure, studies need to start off in vitro before going to in vivo (real, living test subjects), but rarely do they translate into accurate results as to what would happen to a living man or woman that would ingest (or apply topically) a substance. For example:

"In a further study, silver nanoparticles were toxic to a cultured neuroendocrine cell line
(phenotype PC-12), used as an in vitro model for brain cells20. Cellular morphology, mitochondrial
function (i.e. how much energy the cell can produce) and dopamine depletion rates (an indicator
of Parkinson’s disease) were assessed after 24 hours exposure. Additionally silver nanoparticles
depleted dopamine at high and cytotoxic rates (50 lg/ml). Mitochondrial activity was reduced at
doses ranging from 10 to 50 lg/ml compared to control, untreated cells. Cells treated with silver
nanoparticles decreased in size and became irregular in shape.21"

Sounds scary, right? But, consider what's actually happening here. They cultured a neuroendocrine cell line and used THAT as a model. Then, they directly apply the full concentrated nano silver serum right to the neuroendocrine cell line, and examined the effects. Now, the only way that nano silver would get to any of our internal parts, brain, etc. is if we ingest it. If you ingest something, it's broken down and disseminated, so there is NO way that even if it did happen to reach something like the neuroendocrine cell line that it would be exposed to anywhere near the full dose that you ingested.

May I ask for how long does 1 bottle go for ? And is it supposed to be used daily ? (like 1 dose each day)
Thanks.

CausticSymmetry wrote:Based on animal research, most silver is eliminated from the body in two days.

Cumulative excretion ranged from 90 to 99% on the second day after ingestion, with less than 1% of the dose being retained in less than 1 week in monkeys, rats and mice per EPA.

One interesting note (not related to hair), for companies that use very large amounts of nano silver, there is a microorganism called Euglena has been shown to remove industrial size amounts from waste water in rapid time.

This is about ingestion of silver. The digestive system has means of naturally removing toxic substances from the body (which it uses to get rid of silver, due to its toxicity). There's no reason why this would automatically apply to use on the skin and scalp. Much like how moderate consumption of alcohol, even very strong alcohol, is quite easy for our livers to deal with, but applying high concentrations of alcohol to the skin dries it out and causes free radical damage. (The same also goes for many other skin irritants that are found commonly in food and plants.)

nidhogge wrote:Ibrium--
1) As CS pointed out, even at 32 PPM, nano silver still had the absolute lowest rating of "1". PPM means Particles Per Million...that's just 100 particles of silver for every 999,900 particles of water. In the entire bottle of RejuvePlex, that's I believe .0001% of silver. Whether it's 32 or 68 more particles per million in addition, it wouldn't be a cause for alarm.

Saying "this is really tiny, so it doesn't matter" is the same kind of argument used by climate denialists to say that because the changes in carbon concentration in the atmosphere are so small, they couldn't possibly have an effect.

In this case, we are talking about more than triple the strength. In relative terms, that is huge. Are there tests showing that 100 PPM is safe, or even more effective at anything than 50PPM (to justify its inclusion/cost), when used on the skin or scalp? I've already explained why internal and topical usage are different.

3) Trying to use the whole "don't blame the medical-industrial complex" bit doesn't really work with silver.

My point is that it's ad hominem. It's a fallacy. It doesn't strengthen the argument here. And studies have been done and paid for by all different people without necessarily having a special interest. In fact, the studies supporting the use of silver (and many alternative remedies) are subject to the exact same criticism - they're paid for and designed by the people selling the product! There's always a financial interest, on both sides.

Because it essentially eliminates the need for antibiotic drugs

Sorry, but this is absurd, and I don't believe there are legitimate scientific studies to support that claim. Having anti-bacterial properties does not mean it substitutes for antibiotic drugs. It's already been made clear that the body just excretes silver, hasn't it? (Also, looking into it, silver isn't as effective against gram-positive bacteria.)

The thing is, I linked to a study that showed that silver is potentially as toxic to humans as it is to bacteria. You seem far more keen to acknowledge the studies that support your view of silver, even though they might have major issues with their methodology, too. It's somewhat of a confirmation bias to say "THESE studies prove that silver is a perfect antibiotic and completely safe at the doses needed to work in that way and has lots of benefits", while saying "THESE studies that find dangers or ineffectiveness in silver are all part of the conspiracy to suppress its usage in place of current medicine". You have to treat all the evidence equally, and take new evidence into account without letting your bias control you.

For example, you mention in vitro vs in vivo studies, but pretty much all of the demonstrated "benefits" of silver (for its antibacterial use) have only been shown in vitro, too. There isn't clear evidence that it would work internally. It works as a topical antibiotic, but because it's less effective than newer antibiotics, and those newer antibiotics are more "selective" in terms of only attacking bacteria, it's just been superseded.

Now, here we aren't even talking about internal usage - so both its internal effectiveness and internal harm aren't even what we're debating. I don't need an antibiotic to grow my hair, either - and why would I want to kill the "good" bacteria along with any bad ones? As well as, potentially, its ability to directly have a toxic effect on cells in my scalp? Since, again, when applied topically to human cells, it appears to be as toxic as it is to bacteria.

Ibrium--

Climate denialists? You seriously believe in global warming after this Rockefeller propaganda has been successfully debunked multiple times by respectable scientists? Temperatures lately have been rising on all of the planets in our solar system. This is due to changes in our sun, solar cycles:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/07/solar_as_big_as_people/

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/solar-cycles-cause-global-warming-cooling/

I'm not sure how old you are so you may or may not be aware, but the big thing in the 70s was "global cooling". However, when they were touting that propaganda, it started warming, and this the weather has been flip-flopping back and forth like that since the done of time. So, after being repeatedly rebuked and debunked, instead of using "global warming" and "global cooling", they instead use "climate change". As with mostly any issue that you see pushed by mass media, it's pure malarkey.

Now, to address the rest of what you said:

There's no reason why this would automatically apply to use on the skin and scalp. Much like how moderate consumption of alcohol, even very strong alcohol, is quite easy for our livers to deal with, but applying high concentrations of alcohol to the skin dries it out and causes free radical damage. (The same also goes for many other skin irritants that are found commonly in food and plants.)

You're right about alcohol, and this generally applies to solutions that contain at least 10% of alcohol, typically 30% and more. However, that's 10-30%+ of the ENTIRE solution. Nano-Silver in RejuvePlex, as mentioned before is .0001% of the solution. Nowhere near the same. In addition, nano-silver is not a skin irritant...it's actually used in topical preparations to ALLEVIATE skin irritation and inflammation.

I've already explained why internal and topical usage are different.

Not really. Applying a topical solution to skin vs. a raw neuroendocrine stem cell is like comparing night to day, the sun to the moon, ron paul to barack obama. Completely different animals. If you want to know how nano-silver affects skin cells, then do an in vivo study on at least animal skin. Seems like it would have actually of been easier to perform such a study on a few rats, yet for some reason they chose an in vitro study on a cultured stem cell which was probably more expensive than a live rat study.

[quoteMy point is that it's ad hominem. It's a fallacy. It doesn't strengthen the argument here. And studies have been done and paid for by all different people without necessarily having a special interest. In fact, the studies supporting the use of silver (and many alternative remedies) are subject to the exact same criticism - they're paid for and designed by the people selling the product! There's always a financial interest, on both sides.[/quote]

Not true at all. The people that sell silver are typically pretty small businesses as it's not something you can patent and make a killing off of like pharma companies do with their drugs. They don't have the money to fund these studies. You'll find that silver studies are typically independently done, often in Europe. On the other hand, pharmaceutical interests DO have the money to throw away on such agenda-driven studies where they decide the results before-hand, and setup the study to arrive upon that result.

Sorry, but this is absurd, and I don't believe there are legitimate scientific studies to support that claim. Having anti-bacterial properties does not mean it substitutes for antibiotic drugs. It's already been made clear that the body just excretes silver, hasn't it? (Also, looking into it, silver isn't as effective against gram-positive bacteria.)

You have centuries of anecdotal evidence passed on, which is far greater than any study will tell you. In addition, the new nano technology greatly increases the efficacy of silver in taking apart bacteria, fungi, and parasites in your body. I'm not saying that you should use it regularly, but if you have an intense infection, supplementing a high concentration with a good alkaline, sugar and gluten-free diet seems to work wonders for people. This site has some good feedback from Mesosilver customers, including a doctor:

http://www.colloidsforlife.com/silver_Lyme_Disease.html

The fact of the matter is, silver eliminates the need for a good chunk of the antibiotics on the market, and that's due to the fact that a higher potency silver will result in a higher antibiotic effect throughout the body.

The thing is, I linked to a study that showed that silver is potentially as toxic to humans as it is to bacteria. You seem far more keen to acknowledge the studies that support your view of silver, even though they might have major issues with their methodology, too.

Look, I already explained to you why that study is irrelevant in my view, but you seem to have already of made up your mind. This study was a direct application to a NEUROENDOCRINE STEM CELL. That has absolutely nothing to do reality. Do you know how many hair loss cures we would have if in vitro studies such as this panned out? You're lucky to get 1 out of 1,000 that have any sort of positive evidence when moved to an in vivo study. The body is an incredibly complex thing--you can't just remove one part of it and experiment and assume that is what will happen in vivo.

Silver studies that have been conducted, as mentioned, have been actual health institutions looking to see "what was up" with silver. It's been working so well for people for so long that it's peaked medical interest around the world, resulting in studies. Not because some incredibly rich silver company is banking them because, to my knowledge, no such company exists.

As for why you would need it on your hair...simple--nano bacteria and parasites such as demodex that are responsible for a good majority of hair loss due to inflammation signals that your body produces in reaction to their presence. Silver has been successfully used on its own for hair growth:

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1452919

That above link being one of many examples that I've seen when researching whether to put nano silver into RejuvePlex or not. The silver gets in there, takes care of pathogens, and has to yet exhibit any negative side-effects in all these years of people using it for topical applications.

That study did not show that nano-silver was toxic to human cells. It shows that if you apply such-and-such concentration to, again, a NEUROENDOCRINE STEM CELL, then it can exhibit signs of toxicity. We're not doing any such thing. I'd be far more concerned with the chemicals that one washes one's hands, body, and hair with, and from an internal perspective, vaccines, pharma antibiotics, and GMO/artificial/inorganic food.

Nuada--

I shave my head, so with a shaved head, it lasts 2-3 months typically. I apply it 1-2 times per day, and apply it on my face as well.