I believe we were just looking at melanocytes in vivo, the placebo is the base color which is black and the rest of them show how much the black tone was lightened due to the skin lightening treatments with HQ and Deoxyarbutin. Deoxyarbutin shows dramatic lightening from black to almost medium brown with 3% whereas HQ shows some lightening at 2 or 4% but not at all close to Deoxy's results.
Echoing - Ondine - can you describe the subject photos (test subjects?) and the link to the study. I believe you referred to it in your earlier post (where someone was "dissin" you - lol) sorry. I find it so funny.
N E way -
Your pictures are going to excite a lot of forum members into buying dA - which would be good for you as well, yes?
But hopefully they (members) arm themselves with as much data and facts as possible before use.
I was posting on different threads before so I'm not sure everyone was following- so let me repeat a few things here-
First, I am a scientist, not a doctor or a user of skin lightening products, and I have no commercial interest in any skin lightening products whatsoever.
I invented dA about 10 years ago when I was at P&G, and we donated it to the Children's Hospital to use on burned children. It was subsequently liscensed for OTC use to Grindus for the USA ans Europe, and CalPharma for the far east/asian market.
Then I moved on to other projects, and other companies and patented, among other things, the formula used in Latisse- the eyelash lengthener.
I stumbled across this forum when, on a whim, I googled my old invention, dA, and saw that a lot of folks had a lot of questions that I could easily answer, but that they might have trouble getting straight answers from otherwise.
So, I joined, and am here to help.
Now, as far as these pictures- can you see the full-size of these? I posted them somewhere here on the site... or can you only see these little versions? You really need to look at the full-size pictures.
Thanks for all the info you are sharing, madelong. I truly hope that the in vivo results (lab-grown skin samples or guinea pig skin samples?) translate into safe effective results on humans. the obvious issue with samples (even when they're live) is that toxicity is impossible to establish. O;ce that 'sample' is connected to the biological system of a live human, how safe is it? Does effectiveness diminish due to bodily processes (circulation, digestion, excretion, immune system responses etc) not apparent in a live sample in a petri dish? I am not positing this issues to create an argument: I am truly hopeful that, having proven effective in the 'dish' on live tissue samples, that this break-through proves to be revolutionary for use in humans. More research clearly needs to be done, but I'm sure you know that already. Thanks for sharing yr progress so far & please keep updating us as you go.
Oh- I am sorry- I forget sometimes about nomenclature- 'in vivo' means a test was done on a living animal or living human- not in a test tube, or petri dish. These pictures are all of live, black-skinned guinea pigs- they were shaven, and then treated with the various actives topically- G. pig skin is very similar to human skin. The photos are magnified- the ruler in each photo is mm, so it's about a 10X magnification- you can see the stubble of the hairs- which- interestingly,were not significantly lightened at this dose level.
In vivo can also mean using live tissue that was lab grown for the purposes of such testing. This live skin tissue is sometimes grafted onto burn victims etc. Thanks for clarifying that this was guinea pig skin actually attached to a live guinea pig! That wasn't evident in the photos or descriptions.
Were you using micronized HQ? I noticed that the melanin produced by the hair follicles was not affected. With monobenzyl ether of Hydroquinone, the hair often depigments too-which can be problematic. How long after having observed the reports you photographed did you monitor the bodily functions of the guinea pigs to check for cytotoxicity & other undesirable effects?
When will you have ethical/legal clearance to begin testing (dbl blind placebo controlled) studies in humans? This is such a potentially ground-breaking discovery. If it is suspended in a viscouos hydrophilic base, it will be of great use to vitiligo sufferers where mono 20% yields irregular results & low patient compliance due to complications like irritation & the difficultoes they experience trying to spread the thick, chalky pasty 'gunk' on their skin.
We did double blind placebo controlled studies in humans several years ago- and of course all the necessary safety testing. We showed that it had a significant skin lightening effect compared to placebo.
One of the most striking things about dA that differentiated it from HQ was that >90% of it was excreted in the urine, whereas only about 10% of the HQ. The remainder of the HQ remained in the skin-
In general, with any drug, rapid excretion is a safer end path than retention.
if i understand correctly, because Madelong donated the discovery thru P&G, the deoxyarbutin patent is now held by Girindus, doesn't that mean Girindus is the only company that may supply it?
im not that familiar with patents ... are they international or would this patent be only valid in USA (and Germany)?
it seems 5 years or more have passed since deoxyarbutin was invented and patented, yet Girindus seems to not even be producing it let alone supplying it to other manufacturers for licensed incorporation into their product.. i wonder why?
did deoxyarbutin cause uneven lightening in trials or somethin? i ask only cuz i couldnt help but notice that structure of this 'arbutin' is that of an oxyphenol, rather than a glucopyranoside.
The side chain of dA is a 'deoxy' version of a glucopyranoside; that is a glucopyranoside with all the hydroxyl stripped off. Both arbutin and dA are oxyphenols, that is the other side of the molecule- the side that looks like HQ