New anti-ageing treatment that claims to be permanent, unlike muscle relaxers and fillers, is currently under development by a British biomedical company Intercytex. It is called Vavelta and is made from a clear liquid derived from babies’ foreskins. The liquid contains fibroblasts and is injected into skin to treat signs of ageing, burns and acne scars. Fibroblast cells “rejuvenate and revitalize damaged, aging skin from the inside by actually repopulating the lower skin layers with millions of healthy young skin cells” – writes nydailynews.com.
Vavelta is under clinical trials but there is a lot of excitement going on around it already. Dermatologists like the idea of injecting collagen producing cells into the skin instead of collagen itself and it is called by some "one step after stem cell”. However according to some estimations it may be still 3-4 years till we see Vavelta anti-ageing treatment on the market.
The treatment is also a bit controversial as some people are appauled with the idea of using a human body part, especially coming from a baby, to manufacture this treatment. So the question is: would you use Vavelta to treat wrinkles knowing what it is made of??
Sources:
NY Daily
Vavelta
Copyright: by Skin Care and Beauty Blog
Posts
4 comments:
I wouldn't mind using a human body part if it had been taken from an adult who had given their informed consent, or from a baby where it had been removed for genuine medical need (but since that would tend to mean tissue pathology, that's not likely) and the parents were given due recompense.
But in this case, the removal is a human rights violation, and there is no record of the parents even knowing that the tissue is going to be re-used.
Some day, when a man successfully sues for having been circumcised as a baby, I hope any secondary beneficiaries from his deprivation - such as people who are wrinkle-free at his expense - are also defendants.
Hi Hugh!
Yes, I agree that circumcision by itself is a very controversial topic since it is done to a baby who cannot protest or have any decision on the issue.
But as far as the foreskin use concerned, I am sure the parents are informed and asked for their consent. In an article here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1086330/Would-undergo-anti-ageing-treatment-using-cells-circumcised-newborn-babies.html?ITO=1490, it says: "These are derived from baby foreskins donated by mothers at a hospital in the U.S. after routine circumcision."
Actually, BeautyTalk, that's a pretty misleading statement given that most people have no idea that when they donate their babies mutilated genital remnants they are going to be re-sold for a profit.
There is a huge difference between donations for medical use and for cosmetic use, and the fact is that parents are shockingly uninformed about the real lack of medical reasons for the procedure, and what the donated organ is used for.
The whole thing is such a horrible abuse. And there have been some successful lawsuits recently, and hopefully in November the bill to add boys to the law protecting girls from genital cutting will pass in CA.
Thank you for the information! Are you saying that with this new law parents will not be able to circumsize their newborn boys?
Post a Comment