RejuvePlex Changes/Upgrades/Updates for Upcoming Batch

Hey folks,

We went out-of-stock on the first batch of RejuvePlex earlier this week, but are on schedule to have the next blend made early next week, so downtime should be minimal for orders. That said, in reviewing pricing, the ingredient list, and research studies used for some of these ingredients, we felt that we could safely upgrade a few ingredients without having to raise prices on anybody. The following are the upgrades:

1) RejuvePlex will now contain 100% more of Nano-Lipobelle DN CoQ10-oA

This is a very powerful ingredient, and also, excluding the the Copper Tri-Peptides, the most expensive. While we can't divulge exact percentages used, we can say that the original amount prior to the upgrade was not < 1%, so this is a significant boost.

2) RejuvePlex will now contain 33% more GSP-T

GSP-T, while not cheap by any means, is one of our cheapest Mibelle actives. After crunching some numbers, we found that we can increase the amount in the formula bringing it close to the top-end used in studies. The recommended usage was 1-2.5%; the last batch was above 1%, and with the upgrade, now 33% more on top of what we used last time.

3) RejuvePlex will now contain 100% more GHK-Cu (Copper Tripeptide-1)

Due to the success of RejuvePlex, we were able to order a significantly larger batch of GHK-Cu. As a result, we received a significant price break per gram. Still very expensive for just one active, but enough to justify passing the benefit completely on to the folks here. If you're looking at a formula with 1-2.5% GHK-Cu, then RejuvePlex will not fit that bill. GHK-Cu is an adjunct in this formula as opposed to a primary ingredient, and we believe that the liposomal nature of the actives that it is blended with further enhances its ability to penetrate through pores and follicles.

BONUS: Exclusive for this batch ... Nano-Lipobelle H-AECL

We were given a sizeable sample of this active for our original batch, but due to the expense of having to purchase a kilo of another mibelle active, we had to trim the formula down a bit and, as a result, did not include it. That said, now that everyone has their first impression of what RejuvePlex is like WITHOUT this active, we figured that it wouldn't be a bad idea to add this in for this batch and see what people thought (along with the other upgrades).

Some information can be found at the following link:

http://www.mibellebiochemistry.ch/products/anti-aging/nano-lipobelle-h-aecl.php



Thoughts for the future...

We've been kicking the idea around of letting people purchase small vials of additional actives to "spike" their RejuvePlex with. Some potential candidates--KGF, other Mibelle actives, and potentially removing GHK-Cu from the formula altogether (thus lowering the overall price of the topical) and offering it in little vials so that people can add however much they wish. Of course, formulation instructions would be provided (simple DIY formulation).

Is there any interest in this? This isn't an immediate thing by any means, but just seeing if there is interest... This would not, of course, work with oil-based compounds as it is a water-based formula.

And, one more thing...

I know that some people aren't too keen of the fact that we don't have flashy labels for RejuvePlex yet, but the issue with that is that we're still making little adjustments like this here and there in order to deliver the best product possible. To get labels developed involves a one-time fee of a custom dye which is anywhere from $75-$300, and you typically have a minimum size order of a couple thousand labels which can add up pretty quick. It would restrict our ability to make positive changes like this as the thought of throwing all that money away on labels that would no longer be proper for the product is discouraging.

So, that said, I hope that everyone can bear with us...there won't be any drastic changes to the formula, but there may be a tweak here and there! Thank you!

First: Awesome changes, sounds great!

Second: If you decided to go the "vial" route (would this still make the actives in the vials liposomal?), I would love to see AHK-Cu instead of GHK-Cu, which has a much better track record in studies for hair growth.

Also, I asked in the other thread, I didn't see lecithin or phospholipids in the ingredients, is this an omission or aren't the actives in RejuvePlex as it is now liposomal?

Thanks for the great work and dedication guys, love the topical so far!

Congratulations Nid, truly ground breaking work. Well done and fingers crossed...

A paradoxical thought perhaps, but if I were to order some could you make me a weaker batch?

awesome Nid! I guess the vial idea is kind of cool. What if you you had both options? say half with the full ingredient list and ratios, and then some others with ingredients omitted and vials available to either strengthen or add a new ingredient. After typing this it's not seeming to make sense... haha

as far as labels goes... i don't know why anyone would care whether or not there was a good looking label on the product or not. in fact in a lot of cases it makes me trust the product less. if it's going to cost more to produce then my vote is leave it alone. however, if you want to increase the mainstream marketability of it labels could probably help i suppose

Mastery--

I don't actually blend the batches myself, we have that done professionally by an herbalist apprentice with some high-tech blending equipment. Better to not screw up and guarantee that we have the ratios as close to perfect as possible in the formula. But, I wouldn't be concerned about any adverse strengths from the increase in strength. It's hard to convey in a written message as opposed to over the phone, but when you take a look at the entire formula, the tweaks are quite small. Of course, if for some reason you wanted a refund, that would be available to with a returned bottle! Otherwise, I would do it custom for you, but don't have the resources to do so...that said, I don't feel that the strength of any of the actives would provide any complications for people; nothing is over-powering, and used within recommended levels per studies in consideration of not only efficacy, but safety as well.

virtua--

I haven't forgotten the AHK-Cu...I'll shop around a bit for pricing and availability! Have we seen GHK-Cu actually tested for hair in any studies? I ask because if only AHK-Cu was tested and not GHK-Cu, then it may stand to reason that both are as effective. Just curious.

The actives in the vials would still be liposomal if we did that (for the ingredients that are actually liposomal). Also, did I provide you with a label with your order? It gives a complete break-down of ingredients, and Lecithin is listed in there (which comprises the phospholipids).

yanks--

I see what you mean, but it'd be a nightmare from a logistical and cost-perspective to come up with multiple Rejuveplex blends with different actives/ratios. With the GHK-Cu (or AHK-Cu if we go that route down the road), I can see removing that from the formula and allowing people the option of a 1g vial or something, but that's still something that I'm on the fence about. Definitely a lot more research to be done on this whole idea of "vial boosters".

That all makes sense, thanks - & I agree. And in any event I would likely dilute the solution to begin with and gradually increase it to full strength in my case as my body gets use to it, as I know I am sensitive and do better that way.

M

nidhogge wrote:virtua--

I haven't forgotten the AHK-Cu...I'll shop around a bit for pricing and availability! Have we seen GHK-Cu actually tested for hair in any studies? I ask because if only AHK-Cu was tested and not GHK-Cu, then it may stand to reason that both are as effective. Just curious.

Great! Not really sure, but the biggest study that I know of was of AHK-Cu. AHK-Cu is also often called a GHK-Cu analog or derivative, and I think it seems they wouldn't have developed it if GHK-Cu was the most effective for hair growth.

But, ProCyte use GHK-Cu in GraftCyte today, which is to be used after hair transplants, but I think this might be more for skin regeneration and healing then hair growth stimulation (as they have already transplanted hair). However they market AHK-Cu in Tricomin (although we suspect in VERY small doses which means it's not effective), more towards "normal" hair growth.

So overall, I think AHK-Cu is the only one that has been showed effective in studies.

Keep in mind though that at 1.25% AHK-Cu was not seen to be very effective at all, but at 2.25% twice a day it was seen as more effective than 2% minoxidil in regrowing hair.

nidhogge wrote:
The actives in the vials would still be liposomal if we did that (for the ingredients that are actually liposomal). Also, did I provide you with a label with your order? It gives a complete break-down of ingredients, and Lecithin is listed in there (which comprises the phospholipids).

Ahh, yes you did, but I didn't think I saw it on there. Sorry about that!

As always, thanks for your great work for us all Nidhogge!

nidhogge wrote:Hey folks,

We went out-of-stock on the first batch of RejuvePlex earlier this week, but are on schedule to have the next blend made early next week, so downtime should be minimal for orders. That said, in reviewing pricing, the ingredient list, and research studies used for some of these ingredients, we felt that we could safely upgrade a few ingredients without having to raise prices on anybody. The following are the upgrades:

1) RejuvePlex will now contain 100% more of Nano-Lipobelle DN CoQ10-oA

This is a very powerful ingredient, and also, excluding the the Copper Tri-Peptides, the most expensive. While we can't divulge exact percentages used, we can say that the original amount prior to the upgrade was not < 1%, so this is a significant boost.

2) RejuvePlex will now contain 33% more GSP-T

GSP-T, while not cheap by any means, is one of our cheapest Mibelle actives. After crunching some numbers, we found that we can increase the amount in the formula bringing it close to the top-end used in studies. The recommended usage was 1-2.5%; the last batch was above 1%, and with the upgrade, now 33% more on top of what we used last time.

3) RejuvePlex will now contain 100% more GHK-Cu (Copper Tripeptide-1)

Due to the success of RejuvePlex, we were able to order a significantly larger batch of GHK-Cu. As a result, we received a significant price break per gram. Still very expensive for just one active, but enough to justify passing the benefit completely on to the folks here. If you're looking at a formula with 1-2.5% GHK-Cu, then RejuvePlex will not fit that bill. GHK-Cu is an adjunct in this formula as opposed to a primary ingredient, and we believe that the liposomal nature of the actives that it is blended with further enhances its ability to penetrate through pores and follicles.

BONUS: Exclusive for this batch ... Nano-Lipobelle H-AECL

We were given a sizeable sample of this active for our original batch, but due to the expense of having to purchase a kilo of another mibelle active, we had to trim the formula down a bit and, as a result, did not include it. That said, now that everyone has their first impression of what RejuvePlex is like WITHOUT this active, we figured that it wouldn't be a bad idea to add this in for this batch and see what people thought (along with the other upgrades).

Some information can be found at the following link:

http://www.mibellebiochemistry.ch/products/anti-aging/nano-lipobelle-h-aecl.php



Thoughts for the future...

We've been kicking the idea around of letting people purchase small vials of additional actives to "spike" their RejuvePlex with. Some potential candidates--KGF, other Mibelle actives, and potentially removing GHK-Cu from the formula altogether (thus lowering the overall price of the topical) and offering it in little vials so that people can add however much they wish. Of course, formulation instructions would be provided (simple DIY formulation).

Is there any interest in this? This isn't an immediate thing by any means, but just seeing if there is interest... This would not, of course, work with oil-based compounds as it is a water-based formula.

And, one more thing...

I know that some people aren't too keen of the fact that we don't have flashy labels for RejuvePlex yet, but the issue with that is that we're still making little adjustments like this here and there in order to deliver the best product possible. To get labels developed involves a one-time fee of a custom dye which is anywhere from $75-$300, and you typically have a minimum size order of a couple thousand labels which can add up pretty quick. It would restrict our ability to make positive changes like this as the thought of throwing all that money away on labels that would no longer be proper for the product is discouraging.

So, that said, I hope that everyone can bear with us...there won't be any drastic changes to the formula, but there may be a tweak here and there! Thank you!

Nid, I'm going to be sticking with Rejuveplex for the next few months. I want to give it a fair shot, but honestly, before making any drastic changes to the formula, don't you think it will be difficult to assess it's efficacy if you don't give it at least 6 months without removing things such as copper peptides from the formula? I'm hoping the future thoughts won't be in the too near future

I have buzzed my head and am applying Rejuveplex a minimum of twice daily to my scalp. I will be comparing my results to Minoxidil 5 percent, which has without a doubt worked for me every single time I've got back on it. Within no more than 3 weeks of starting up minoxidil (twice a day), I always see lil thin dark hairs on my temples. If minoxidil can do that for me, I'm hoping Rejuvaplex at least stay on par - I will keep you guys posted on my results.

virtua--

I spoke with our chemist that produces the GHK-Cu, and he can also do the AHK-Cu for a few bucks more per gram. So, it'd still be quite expensive, particularly if you want to get 2.25%. Then again, it'd probably last a while too (few months), so I guess that's not too bad.

unfortunate--

No worries, we're not removing anything from the formula anytime soon. Folks would have plenty of heads-up if we decided to do such a thing. If anything, just adding (ie. - increased percentages of certain actives as we did in this thread).

I support the addition of KGF, I used to order it from Skin Actives but stopped due to price. Even tried bartering on the price to no avail. I would support removing GHK-Cu to help lower the price as I already am adding GHK-Cu to a separate serum which I apply in addition to the RejuvePlex. And more ingredients from Mibelle? Sounds good to me.

Funny that you're talking about KGF. The topical from skinactives was going to be my next topical of choice, but then Rejuveplex came out. I am seeing tons of rave reviews regarding the KFG hair serum online, but the primary ingredient in it is Seakelp bioferment (listed right after water), which also is one of the primary ingredients in Rejuveplex (5 percent). KGF probably is a good thing so I hope it is added eventually. The downside to the skin actives topical to me is that it has PG, which I know I can't tolerate.

I would rather stay with something more natural like Rejuveplex with its nanosomes and its limited alcohol content. Keep up the good work Nid. I am not so sure about the Copper peptides yet as I have read mixed reviews. I am seeing some people even saying it can cause skin sagging, but others raving about it. This is confusing to me.

nidhogge wrote:
I know that some people aren't too keen of the fact that we don't have flashy labels for RejuvePlex yet, but the issue with that is that we're still making little adjustments like this here and there in order to deliver the best product possible. To get labels developed involves a one-time fee of a custom dye which is anywhere from $75-$300, and you typically have a minimum size order of a couple thousand labels which can add up pretty quick. It would restrict our ability to make positive changes like this as the thought of throwing all that money away on labels that would no longer be proper for the product is discouraging.

I agree with Yanks on this. It's better to invest that money in making the product itself even better. If the bottle looks too much like another bottle I have around in my room, I'll just grab a permanent marker and write "Rejuveplex" on it.

Nid,

Just received my new batch of Rejuveplex. I know you said some stuff was going to be added in higher conentractions, but the new consistency and color looks completely different to me. Before it seemed like a clear blue formulation and now it looks more like brown. Has anything major been removed?

Nid, Is the new formula still safe to use on the face with the increased concentrations of GHK and CSP-T? I don't want to be growing hair all over my face. Out of curiosity have you thought of making two products, one for the scalp/hair and one for the face, understand your idea was to cover both, but perhaps you could target the two areas more specifically with two offerings.

sc871--

Absolutely. The GSP-T is still within the levels used for face and scalp care, and the Copper Tri-peptides as well.

I'm open to another topical product down the line as an adjunct, but the thing with having one product for the face and one for the hair is that, in my opinion, if something can only be used for one and not the other then it's not a good product. In other words, a quality product with healthy actives will benefit both the face and scalp in its own way.

If we do an adjunct product, it'd be a cream most likely, as we could then utilize fat-soluble compounds (RejuvePlex is all water-soluble).

nidhogge wrote:
We've been kicking the idea around of letting people purchase small vials of additional actives to "spike" their RejuvePlex with. Some potential candidates--KGF, other Mibelle actives, and potentially removing GHK-Cu from the formula altogether (thus lowering the overall price of the topical) and offering it in little vials so that people can add however much they wish. Of course, formulation instructions would be provided (simple DIY formulation).

Is there any interest in this? This isn't an immediate thing by any means, but just seeing if there is interest... This would not, of course, work with oil-based compounds as it is a water-based formula.

HUGE interest in this. I would certainly buy each one of the potential additives and be a repeat customer. I tend to take the "spare no expense" expense to hair loss, because I don't have enough time left in my life to piss around!

Seriously, though, this would be a great idea.

Thanks Violent!

It'll be a while yet, as the upstart cost is thousands and we have a few other places to put that money first as far as expanding inventory so we don't run out-of-stock on supplements, but it seems like an awesome idea for down the road...

I have been using (and started on) the second batch of rejuveplex (the one with more copper, COq10, etc.)for two weeks now. I am very pleased with the soothing and calming effect it has had on my irritated scalp. I am ONLY using rejuveplex, nothing else, internal or otherwise--so everything here can be attributed to this topical!

The topical was a murky bluish/greenish in colour. After only one week of day and night use (and I do apply quite a bit) I found it has created a sort of "pumped" effect on my scalp, where it just feels strong and full if that makes any sense--I like the feeling. I think this might be the copper that causes it to feel that way. I must say that I am very pleased so far Nidhogge!

The third batch was received yesterday, and it looks brownish, and seems to be more oily and sticky. I suspect the change may be due to the absence of that mibelle active (forgot the name) that was only a sample for the second batch.

[Nidhogge--your idea to do separate add on viles is awesome!!!! I would be all over that, as I think would most people on here, who seem to be using a bunch of stuff in conjunction with their rejuveplex. I might suggest excluding not only the copper from the main formula to cut down on price, but also the puresterol--which seems to be causing some of the breast tenderness problems in people.]

Side note-- I have been applying rejuveplex to the sebhorric dermatitis on my eyebrows and sides of nose, and while at first it seemed to be a little irritating (maybe my skin just getting used to the product or maybe the temporary die off caused by the colloidal silver?) I think it has definately helped to cut down on inflamation. This is very exciting!!!! Nothing I have tried in the past has seemed to do anything positive for my dermatitis.

In the meantime, is there a source of copper additive that we can get on our own to add to Rejuveplex?

Nid, how many different batches are out there? Are you still on the same 2nd batch formula or is there a new third batch?

johnny--

Fantastic feedback, thank you! I believe that the increase in irritation is die-off, as I experienced the same thing (raised bumps here and there around my eyebrows and hairline--well, near where it used to be anyway, heh!).

The slight texture change is due to the nano silver that was used this batch (different company). It's brownish in color, and actually is 55 PPM instead of 50 PPM in this formula (though I can't see that being a differential as it's pretty insignificant). The original nano silver is bluish in color. The original is from a doc in Poland, the current from Invive.com. Invive informed me when I asked about the color change as to why it ought to be brown and not blue...gotta get a response from our Polish source as to the different color. The reason we went with Invive was that it seems the shipment from Poland got "lost" so we needed an alternate source, so I looked and found that source.

Though, just so you know--the brown is definitely not rancidity! Just the color this batch came out to.

Nid, can I suggest you need to stop changing things up so quickly.?

I am not liking the new batch. I will admit I did not partictulaly like the 1st batch for topical use on how fast it absorbed, it just did not spread well and it was absorbed on impact However did some great things in the skin overall. Yet still many times I needed to add a moisturizer to the face afterwards. The 2nd batch was better in application I could spread it and moisturizing was need as much, perhaps it was the H-ACEL.

This last batch just leaves the skin/scalp oily looking and has a tint to it that goes away after a few hours, is that the new Nano silver? I also noticed that the scalp on the microscopic level at the follicles is still tinted a brownish color..


Can I suggest we (the users) take a poll on any changes on formulation...after all we are the end users..

sc871 wrote:Nid, can I suggest you need to stop changing things up so quickly.?

I am not liking the new batch. I will admit I did not partictulaly like the 1st batch for topical use on how fast it absorbed, it just did not spread well and it was absorbed on impact However did some great things in the skin overall. Yet still many times I needed to add a moisturizer to the face afterwards. The 2nd batch was better in application I could spread it and moisturizing was need as much, perhaps it was the H-ACEL.

This last batch just leaves the skin/scalp oily looking and has a tint to it that goes away after a few hours, is that the new Nano silver? I also noticed that the scalp on the microscopic level at the follicles is still tinted a brownish color..


Can I suggest we (the users) take a poll on any changes on formulation...after all we are the end users..

Just got the 3rd batch in the mail today and am already disappointed with the texture change. I was on the 1st batch and then the 2nd batch up until now. The 3rd seems to be more of a clearer and thinner formula that takes longer to absorb, it also is leaving more unabsorbed residue IMO.

I ordered on the 18th of February, did I receive the second or the third batch? My batch was a bit more cloudy than the first one, and seemed a brownish green.

virtua_ wrote:I ordered on the 18th of February, did I receive the second or the third batch? My batch was a bit more cloudy than the first one, and seemed a brownish green.

That sounds like the 2nd batch from my experience.