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.

i keep my RejuvePlex + ahk in the refrig.

nidhogge wrote:Ibrium--Climate denialists? You seriously believe in global warming after this Rockefeller propaganda has been successfully debunked multiple times by respectable scientists?

WOW. Did not expect this one... Are you serious? I think you need to do some less biased research. In the past couple of years, even studies by staunch holdouts against the idea of human-induced global warming have accepted that the vast majority of the increasing temperature of the planet can only be explained by the effects of humans. They didn't just forget to take other things into account. They were funded by people like the Koch brothers who stand to make millions by preventing anything from being done about climate change. And 97-98% of climate scientists, many of whom are respectable, already believed it before then. There isn't just one source of evidence that's been "debunked", there's a huge amount from a wide range of sources.

Interestingly, you're on the same side of this argument as the people with shitloads of money (which they can use to run bogus studies) and a financial interest in maintaining the status quo and environmentally destructive energy sources. Hence why I'm surprised.

And here you go:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm

This is actually what I mean about confirmation bias. Even if far more studies, or studies with similar or better methodology to the ones you use, find something different, you assume them to be wrong. Much like criticising a study for being in vitro when you only have in vitro evidence of your own claims.

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.

I think you missed the point of my carbon example, which was responding to a specific argument that is known to be flawed. The concentration in which alcohol is harmful is completely different to the concentration at which nanosilver is harmful. According to that study, it's toxic to human and bacteria cells in the same concentration. Even if that's wrong, we're talking about three times what has been proven to be safe. You can't just assume "this is really tiny, so it's fine".

Just curious, what are your views on fluoridated drinking water? Because that's in similarly small concentrations to what we're discussing, and is also considered to be completely safe at that concentration (according to decades of studies in numerous countries, though I'm personally sceptical of certain things that could have been overlooked). Yet there are hordes of conspiracy theorists and people claiming it causes all kinds of problems.

In addition, nano-silver is not a skin irritant...it's actually used in topical preparations to ALLEVIATE skin irritation and inflammation.

Used to, or proven to?

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

Not really.

Yes, I did. The rest of your paragraph is true, but irrelevant. I've explained the difference and will not be considering any more internal studies.

If you want to know how nano-silver affects skin cells, then do an in vivo study on at least animal skin.

Yep, I agree. And don't use it in products to be applied to the skin until that study has been done! And only at the concentrations shown to be safe, not at triple those concentrations and saying "it's okay, because it's still only a tiny bit in absolute terms".

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.

Haha, if only. Alternative medicine is a multi-billion dollar industry, which also includes large companies and other organisations that even fund studies. (Basically, the people who promote those products, represent their industries to the government, etc.) You're right about the patents, but many pharmaceutical companies do own companies that sell those products, because there's still money in it.

And even those with less money have conducted smaller "studies" that were not scientifically rigorous (e.g. double blinded, placebo controlled), and those are being used to justify unproven claims about silver.

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.

You don't need money to do that. Anyone, looking for any result, can do that. Neither the people selling it, or the people selling "competitors", are free of suspicion from a conflict of interest. But there ARE independent studies as well. And regardless, it is ad hominem and my point is that it's irrelevant for that reason.

You have centuries of anecdotal evidence passed on, which is far greater than any study will tell you.

No, it's not... There are huge issues with that. A number of fallacies (appeal to tradition, assuming correlation implies causation, survivor bias, the placebo effect, regression to the mean, all the problems that come with anecdotal evidence), and things that don't hold up scientifically. Documented evidence would tell us a lot more.

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.

There are a number of studies disproving this, and none proving it yet. There are plenty of people with the money to do so and an interest in doing so. Even if it weren't the kind of big expensive study a pharmaceutical company could do.

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.

And I hope you're right. But you don't have proof, and something that's toxic is toxic. As always, the dose makes the poison, and this is still, somehow, a dose with toxic effects on several kinds of cells, not all of which are bacteria.

And yes, now you're responding to the study, and I'm glad to finally get an answer. Before, everyone kept falling back on the same studies that were largely irrelevant in this context. Just as you claim the new one is. None of them are on skin, or human skin, in the concentrations being used.

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.

And those studies have largely found many of the claims made about its benefits to be false. But that's off-topic.

Again, I just want the evidence that it's safe and that it's beneficial for topical usage on the scalp, at the concentrations you're using it in. I prefer to play it safe. I don't feel like I have any safety issues with anything else in RejuvePlex, and I'm happy to experiment with them.

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.

Is this going to be another "citation needed" thing? I mean, most hair loss is AGA, which is caused by androgens + a genetic susceptibility + PGE2. And there may be other factors too, but they aren't known, or that easily curable. Inflammation is an issue, but not necessarily going to be helped in that way.

Silver has been successfully used on its own for hair growth:

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

One person on the Internet claims it worked, it must be true! Again, you need to understand why anecdotes aren't considered reliable evidence - there are many.

Even if it did work for him, that doesn't mean it'll have any effect for most people. Plus, it was between 5 and 10 ppm. So again, why double the amount from 50 to 100? What's the benefit? All you're doing is moving away from doses that have more evidence for their safety.

Ibrium--

I began to read your post, rolled my eyes, and am now done speaking with you. I simply do not have time for this. Perhaps you don't have better things to do with your time, but I certainly do. I read the first sentence of your reply, which was acting astounded that I would doubt "climate change". I don't "doubt" it. It's happening, as it always has, and always will. That's the nature of living on a planet in an elliptical orbit of a sun. It just has absolutely nothing to do with us, and the tiny amount of CO2 that we excrete relative to that which nature produces via volcanoes and other natural causes. Yet, somehow in the 200 or so years that we've been producing CO2 gases while the earth has been doing it for billions, we're to believe that humans are responsible for the weather getting warmer or colder. The only humans that can alter weather are those in control of HAARP programs. Period.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." ― Joseph Goebbels

If you believe mass media propaganda, then you've a ways to go before I will take anything you say seriously. All the best.

PS - If you think hair loss is just "AGA" then you clearly are new to these boards and haven't taken the time to comb through the years of findings that have been posted here.

Nig,

I sent you two messages , did you get them ? (Rejuveplex)

How is other experience with this topical? Better with AHK or just Rejuveplex is enough?

Thank you to all , Louise

Wow I seriously want to rage right now. I am so tired of shrills like the people in the video trying to sell useless products to try and make a quick buck at others expense. Please watch the video again just the first 5 min and watch the bald dudes body/ face language. Always looking up to the right, touching his face, hands near mouth. I have been studying body language awhile now and trust me this guy is lying blatantly to our face. If I ever saw this guy, I would have a field day. Just look up body language cues for lying, then watch the video. Please. Plus this guys hairline is great so it must work right!

Longshanks--

You're a real piece of shit. That is my first time ever doing a video, and the way that I talk, I like to give real, thoughtful responses instead of giving canned, fake, and rehearsed garbage like you see on television all day. I have a double major, one of which is Communications, so I am well-aware of body language and how it works. The purpose of this video was simply to talk about the product, let people know what's in it, and what it may do based on the science behind each ingredient. So far, the feedback has been positive and it's been out for over a year, while we continue to tweak the formula to further enhance it.

Do your own research on the product, we gave plenty of information on it for people to do their own.

Wow, and the liar results to name calling, dead give away, you say you study body language then look at your first reply back. Obvious post is obvious, stop taking advantage of people, if the results are that great, why are u at least an nw3 pushing nw4 please tell me. Anyone with a basic understanding of body language can tell that u are lying, you see the problem is though your mouth can lie, your body cannot and that will reveal the truth ALWAYS. No need for name calling though (another give away) when one is caught in a lie. But please respond I'd love to hear how this scam works so well

Nid - don't feed the trolls.

Miserable bald fucks like Longshanks deserve to wallow in their own misery. I love how he proclaims that he wants to "rage" after watching a video. Pretty indicative of a juvenile mind.

It;s funny how every once in awhile some douchebag materialzes from the interwebs and tries to slander the forum within 5 posts.

Sorry bro I'm far from bald, nw2-3 but I can wear my hair so it looks like I have no recession, but I would love to get back to nw1. You call me a troll because I ask Nid if this truly helps hairloss why is it not evident in himself? Me pointing out lying cues from body language is something I can easily pick up on sorry. Believe me if this really worked I would happily purchase, but it doesn't, then to throw in an "ant-aging" feature is a spit in the face to people in this forum. As far as me wanting to rage after watching the video, I'm really shocked that many don't feel the same, these people will smile to your face while stealing from your pocket, sorry, I refuse to tolerate dis honesty when it is bluntly obvious. It's sad to see people being taken advantage of and to not say a word is nothing less than selfish and disingenuous of ones character.

Long--

I started shaving my head a few months before we introduced the Ortho Nutrition line in October of 2010. Prior to shaving my head, I had long hair nearly down to my shoulders and had it that long for roughly 5 years. My only consistent income at the time was landscaping, which resulted in me sweating profusely, particularly with long hair. My younger brother who looks alot like me, shaved his head a year or so before, and he looked great with it, got lots of compliments, etc. (private message me if you want pictures of us). So, I took the plunge. My issues are temple recession and a weak hairline. Essentially, an FUE or lasering (possibly) for a few years would do the trick. Problem is--I really do not care. This looks works well for me, I date hot women, I attract good friends, and I love my life. Hair hasnt been a concern of mine *personally* ever since I let it go. I still use rejuveplex and lately magnesium oil topically and laser, but my goal is maintenance. I got rid of a developing bald spot 2 years ago, and my hair density has increased akong with a few terminals popping up here and there. We initially sold 4 supplements. RejuvePlex did not come out until the following I believe December of 2011, the same month that this video was made! In other words, I did not even have the topical in-hand to use when this video was made. The origin of Ortho Nutrition is a simple one. Immortalhair has been helping people with health and hair loss issues for free over many years. He has been referring many new customers to various supplement products and companies, with no money gained on his end. While already a friend of his, I approached him and asked what he thought of us starting our own line, allowing us to cut out crap fillers, control the level of quality of the actives, combine different product recommendations to reduce overall amount of pills and save people money since we do not have the overhead of regular companies. He was reluctant at first but after about 8 months of consideration, we got the necessary investment and pulled the trigger. What was initially 4 supplements grew to 5, then I had the fortune to meet a great woman at a local farmer's market that makes 100 percent organic soaps and shampoos. So, we decided to offer her shampoo and soap and feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.

The next step was to formulate a damned good topical that utilized high-end ingredients at strong percentages with science behind them to boost collagen, reduce inflammation, hydrate, moisturize, and so forth. RejuvePlex took approximately 8 months of research to put together. There are many positive testimonials on this forum, and a few that it has not done much for. It will not help with calcification...only thing I trust for that is magnesium oil thoroughly rubbed into the scalp prior to bed. It will help to reduce hair loss (unless your loss is moreso related to thyroid/adrenal, etc.), may help with thickening and restoring hair color, circulation, prolonging the anagen phase--these ingredients have GOOD research behind them. Mibelle biochemistry is responsible for over half of the actives, a company of about 2/3 PhDs out of switzerland, one of the best natural cosmetical ingredient developers in the world. Again, do your own research.

Additionally, it didnt hit me until later today, but during that video I had word open with a bunch of bullet points to help me stay focused and keep from forgetting anything. Thus, why I was looking back-and-forth frequently.

Now, if you want to act mature and ask questions to learn then by all means, do so. However, if you persist in attempting to attack my character when everyone here has known me for YEARS and can vouch for who I am, then your IP will be banned.