• Lifemap Me DNA Guided Nutrition & Skin Serum Supplements

    So how do I get started?   It’s Easy…

    1.Swab your inner cheek
    2.Mail sample to Genewize labs
    3.Start receiving essentilas within a couple weeks while your DNA is being analyzed
    4.Within 4-6 weeks start receiving Custom formula along with your DNA profile.
    Click the picture below to get more information or to get started today.  If you are in the New Orleans area, I have DNA kits on hand.
    The DNA Collection Kit Lifemap Me DNA Guided Nutrition & Skin Serum Supplements

    Custom Nutrition formulated using your unique DNA profile.

     
  • Lifemap Skin Serum Ingredients

    Aloe Barbadensis Extract

    Aloe is a succulent plant like kalanchoe and ice plant – a specialist in dealing with hot climates whose leaves have a high capacity for storing water. The rhythmically prepared leaf juice soothes the skin and helps maintain proper moisture balance.

    Panthenol (pro Vitamin B5)

    Panthenol (pro Vitamin B5) is a highly valued cosmetic ingredient. The Purist Company choose the naturally occurring d panthenol, which has double the activity compared to the much cheaper ”dl” form often used. This vitamin, commonly called ”the beautifier” is absorbed deep into the skin. It is used in pharmaceutical creams for its soothing and calming properties. It is effective in the treatment of irritated and sensitive skin. It leaves the skin feeling velvety and smooth.

    Glycerin

    Glycerin is widely used in skin care preparations for its ability to soften and sooth skin. It is thought to work due its hygroscopic nature – or ability to attract water from air.  It is a highly effective ingredient where it is incorporated into skin care products for the following reasons: 1. humectant action (to attact water to skin) which restores skin’s suppleness and 2. skin barrier action to protect against moisture loss.

    Glycine

    Glycine retards muscle degeneration by supplying additional creatine, a compound that is present in muscle tissue and is utilized in the construction of DNA and RNA. Glycine helps trigger the release of oxygen to the cell-making process, and is important in the body’s manufacture of hormones responsible for a strong immune system. Glycine also helps make DNA, skin proteins, collagen, and phospholipids (which make cell membranes). It also participates in the major energy producing biochemical reaction in your body.  Because high concentrations of glycine are found in the skin and connective tissues, it is useful for repairing damaged tissues and promoting health.

    Sorbitol

    Sorbitol is by far the most suitable humectant (able to attract water to themselves) for use in products to be left on the skin, such as moisturisers. It is made from GMO-free maize. It is best used in skin products in synergistic combination with low levels of palm glycerin.

    Soy Protein (Glycine Soja (Soybean) Protein)

    Glycine Soja (Soybean) Protein, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein Extract, Glycine Soja (Soybean) Peptide and Soy Amino Acids are ingredients obtained from the soybean plant, Glycine soja. Polypeptides are chains of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Hydrolyzed proteins are proteins that have been broken down into smaller chains of amino acids. Glycine Soja (Soybean) Peptide is the di- and tripeptide fraction of soybean protein. Soy Amino Acids result when soy protein is completely hydrolyzed.  In cosmetics and personal care products, Glycine Soja (Soybean) Protein Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein Extract, Glycine Soja (Soybean) Peptide and Soy Amino Acids may used in the formulation of body, hand, face, and neck products.

    Copper Peptide (Copper Tripeptide -1)

    Copper is an elemental metal, traces of which can be found in your skin cells. When converted into copper peptides, this copper compound can be used in skin care products to promote regeneration.  Copper peptides reduces wrinkles, improves skin elasticity, tightens the skin and neutralizes the damaging effects of free radicals. The positive effects of copper peptides are made possible by its many properties that help promote the production of skin elastin and collagen. With its rich dose of antioxidants, copper peptides may also give skin an overall strengthened and improved condition.  Copper peptides make a great add-on to the list of anti-aging products with alpha hydroxy acids (AHAs). When included in your skin care routine, copper peptides can help you achieve and maintain youthful-looking skin.

    Rice Bran Oil (Rice Oil Glycereth-8 Esters)

    New and nourishing – a powerful skin protectant, rich in gamma-oryzanol, which will protect and replenish your skin.   Rich in phytosterols, Rice Bran oil can be an effective substitute for lanolin, and can help reduce inflammation and soothe discomfort. It’s a wonderful oil for itchy “alligator” skin.   Rice bran oil has long been used in Japan to protect and moisturize the skin, but is a relatively new discovery here in the USA.Rice Bran oil has a high level of the antioxidants gammaoryzanol and tocotrienols (vitamin E), both of which contribute to the oil’s stability.

    Balm Mint Extract (Melissa Officinalis Leaf Extract)

    This extract comes from the leaves and flowers of the Balm Mint plant (Melissa Officinalis). It has an antibacterial and anti-inflammatory effect with calming, soothing skin properties.  A skin soothing agent used for stimulation and healing action.  It has also been used to heal wounds and promote the formation of scabs.

    Rutin (Disodium Rutinyl Disulphate)

    Rutin helps your body properly utilize vitamin C and maintain skin collagen, both of which are important for healthy skin.  Rutin has antioxidant properties that protect your body from free radicals which are harmful to your healthy cells.

    Barley Extract (Hordeum Distichon)

    For astringency, soothing and skin repair. and can be used in lotions, creams and skin firming vehicles such as serums.

    Oat Extract (Hydrolyzed Glycosaminoglycans)

    Hydrolyzed Glycosaminoglycans are widely used in skin care products and cosmetics because of their ability to bind with water efficiently and increase depth hydration, improving the elasticity and firmness of the skin. They are easily accepted into the skin because of their positive charge, and can moisturize the skin, as well as improve the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles by temporarily minimizing the depth of wrinkles on skin.

    Corn Extract (Sodium Levulinate)

    A pH-value stabilizing acid of fruit sugar.

    Konjacs Mannan (Mannan)

    Soothes dehydrated skin and lock in moisture.

    Rice Extract (Sodium Phytate)

    Super anti-oxidant enriched with mineral and vitamins.

    Green Tea Extract ( Camellia Sinensis Extract)

     
  • Hamburg, Collins Chart Course to Personalized Medicine in the New England Journal of Medicine

    June 16, 2010

    By a GenomeWeb staff reporter

    NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – US Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins presented their vision for the future of personalized medicine in a perspectives article appearing online in the New England Journal of Medicine yesterday.

    In it they explained that while researchers are inching closer to personalized medicineidentifying genetic variants involved in diagnosing disease and predicting treatment response — there are still a range of significant scientific and policy issues that need to be dealt with before personalized medicine reaches its full potential.

    “Real progress will come when clinically beneficial new products and approaches are incorporated into clinical practice,” Hamburg and Collins wrote. “As the field advances, we expect to see more efficient clinical trials based on a more thorough understanding of the genetic basis of disease. We also anticipate that some previously failed medications will be recognized as safe and effective and will be approved for subgroups of patients with specific genetic markers.”

    Consequently, the duo noted, both the FDA and NIH are setting out a series of goals and policies aimed at nudging personalized medicine closer to reality.

    Along with highlighting the importance of basic science, translational research, and regulatory studies in achieving personalized medicine, Hamburg and Collins described some of the programs and initiatives that they believe will support these processes.

    “[T]he NIH and FDA will invest in advancing translational and regulatory science, better define regulatory pathways for coordinating approval of co-developed diagnostics and therapeutics, develop risk-based approaches for appropriate review of diagnostics to more accurately assess their validity and clinical utility, and make information about tests readily available,” they wrote.

    Echoing comments that Collins made at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting earlier this year, Hamburg and Collins said the agencies envision an integrated pipeline for helping researchers move from basic research to the development of approved, clinically validated treatments.

    In particular, the team pointed to initiatives such as the NIH’s Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected Disease program, aimed at supporting the preclinical development of specific compounds, the Clinical and Translational Sciences Award, and the FDA’s Critical Path initiative and Voluntary Genomic Data Submission program.

    Hamburg and Collins also touched on the need for linking tissue bank samples with clinical data and emphasized the importance of validating genetic and other tests used during treatment and diagnosis.

    On the latter front, they explained that the NIH, FDA, and other agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services hope to create a voluntary genetic testing registry, while the FDA intends to tweak its therapeutic and diagnostic test review process to meet some of the specific issues associated with the sorts of genetic tests that are already being used to diagnose subsets of patients and direct treatments.

    “The FDA is coordinating and clarifying the process that manufacturers must follow regarding their claims,” Hamburg and Collins noted. “The agency will ensure that claims that a test will improve the care of patients are based on solid evidence, and developers will get straightforward, consistent advice about the standards for review and the best way to demonstrate that the combination works as intended.”

    Feed your genes the nutrients needed to achieve your optimal health and wellness.

     
  • Families Hear Gene Secrets

    Hospital Study Shifts Protocol to Inform Its Participants of Worrisome Test Results

    Children’s Hospital Boston, breaking with scientific convention, has designed a new genetic research project so information gleaned from DNA submitted by patients and their families can benefit not only science, but potentially participants themselves.

    No decisions have been made on what will be passed on to families, but research has already identified genes associated with conditions such as autism, diabetes and obesity. Families who learn they are at genetic risk might seek medical intervention sooner. Others may adopt lifestyle changes to try to lower their risk.

    NA BG413 GENES1 G 20100609175306 Families Hear Gene Secrets

    Channing Johnson for The Wall Street Journal

    Lab technologist Mei Han works May 18 in the Boston laboratory where DNA samples from the Children’s Hospital Boston study are processed.

    In most large-scale genetic research, people contribute genetic information knowing they will receive neither payment nor personal results. One big reason is the concern among researchers and medical ethicists that people would be confused or alarmed by the information, which isn’t always well-understood even by geneticists. Some genes confer increased risk for disease, for instance, but that doesn’t mean someone will definitely get sick.

    But the Boston project, at one of the nation’s leading pediatric hospitals, comes at a time when researchers are starting to confront whether more medical information should be shared with participants in genetic studies. New technologies allow researchers to run many genetic tests at the same time, revealing potentially important health information about individuals.

    “We plan to follow these families for years,” said Kenneth Mandl, one of the principal investigators on the Gene Partnership Project. “In order to ask people to spend more time with this project, we felt we needed to give them something back.”

    One of the project’s goals is to pinpoint the genetic causes of a range of childhood diseases by seeing how lifestyle and environment interact with genetic risk over time. But a key notion is that researchers will be in regular communication with participants. Families will be told of relevant clinical findings regarding their genetic information, as well as clinical trials or other research studies applicable to them.

    The More You Know

    Genetic information can prove useful for people at risk for conditions such as:

    ADHD: A number of genes have been identified that are associated with ADHD. Studies show that ADHD runs in families.

    Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes: Research about Type 1 diabetes has led to studying risk in relatives of patients with diabetes. Genetic studies are also showing that certain genes increase risk of Type 2 diabetes even in people who aren’t obese.

    Obesity: If someone has a genetic predisposition for obesity, changes in diet and other interventions may have an impact.

    High cholesterol: Researchers believe that most cases are the result of genetics combined with lifestyle, including diet and exercise.

    Investigators have already collected several hundred DNA samples from children, their siblings and parents. The hospital plans to start recruiting in the next several weeks from the roughly 60,000 children seen every year at the hospital’s emergency room. The goal is to collect 10,000 DNA samples every year and ultimately to make gene testing part of routine health care at the hospital. Families participate at no cost.

    The hospital has invested about $10 million from federal grants, donations and hospital funding, and is working to raise an additional $50 million over the next three years.

    The Gene Partnership Project is one of a growing number of genetic databases around the country, many collecting DNA from people with specific diseases. Typically the samples, usually blood and saliva, are housed at academic medical centers or hospitals, and researchers interested in studying different diseases submit proposals requesting samples from the databanks. Any findings are usually published in scientific papers but not returned to participants.

    Isaac Kohane, one of the principal investigators, said his involvement grew out of an autism study he did with another co-investigator, Louis Kunkel. The research revealed that two children in the study might have leukemia. Under the terms of the study, the researchers weren’t supposed to give clinical information back to the patients. But such so-called incidental findings are increasingly common as researchers use more sophisticated genetic testing.

    “I lost two nights of sleep over what to do,” Dr. Kohane said. The researchers realized after retesting that the finding was a false positive, but they started talking about ways to communicate clinically relevant information to participants.

    Children’s Hospital Boston gets permission from parents but also explains the project and gains assent from children ages 7 or older, then again at age 13. If the child doesn’t want to participate at any stage, the DNA is destroyed. At age 18, participants must give consent to continue to participate, said Ingrid Holm, who is one of the co-investigators of the Gene Partnership.

    When investigators find genetic information they believe should be shared, a special oversight board including geneticists, ethicists and advocates weighs whether the data are scientifically valid enough to share with interested families. One of the issues is whether the findings require some kind of intervention, such as medical treatment or a lifestyle and dietary change.

    Patient data are anonymous, but the families can be contacted through a secure electronic-messaging system.

    Jessica Freier of Newton, Mass., whose 11- and 9-year-old sons are seen at the hospital’s developmental-medicine clinic, said, “I had hesitation about my kids’ genetic information being in a database. I wasn’t sure how much I wanted on record.” She said she agreed to do it because she thinks the database may help develop “best practices for treating kids.”

    Her 11-year-old son had many questions for the genetic counselor. “He wanted to know how they store it and what they can harvest from it,” she said.

    Other projects are considering such steps but are still wrestling with the issue of how to share results in a meaningful way that might allow people to prevent or treat diseases.

    Hakon Hakonarson, director of the Center for Applied Genomics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, says the pediatric biobank at the hospital has DNA from more than 100,000 people, including over 60,000 children. Currently, participants receive no genetic results.

    He said he personally would “like to give information back because that would be the right thing to do.” His biggest concern is that the samples are collected for research, not for making medical decisions. “We do not want to misinform anyone,” Dr. Hakonarson said.

     
  • Where to next for personal genomics?

    Double Helix 100x100 Where to next for personal genomics?Posted on: May 20, 2010 8:35 PM, by Daniel MacArthur

    The brief Golden Age of direct-to-consumer genetic testing – in which people could freely gain access to their own genetic information without a doctor’s permission – may be about to draw to a close. In a dramatic week, announcements of investigations into direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies by both the FDA and the US Congress have sent the personal genomics industry into a spin, and it is still impossible to say exactly which way it will be pointing once the confusion passes.  I’ve been frustratingly unable to find the time to cover the developments as they happened due to other commitments – but fortunately they have been extremely ably covered elsewhere, notably by Dan Vorhaus over at Genomics Law Report and Kirell Lakhman at GenomeWeb. Here’s a high-level summary for those who haven’t been following closely:
    1. On May 11, direct-to-consumer genetic testing company Pathway Genomics announced that it would be partnering with drugstore chain Walgreens to offer its genetic testing kits on the shelves of Walgreens’ 7,500 stores.
    2. The same day, the director of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety, Alberto Gutierrez, was quoted as follows in the Washington Post:

      “We think this would be an illegally marketed device if they proceed [...] They are making medical claims. We don’t know whether the test works and whether patients are taking actions that could put them in jeopardy based on the test.”

    3. Two days after the Pathway announcement, and following a letter from the FDA to Pathway, both Walgreens and rival CVS Caremark, who had also apparently been planning to stock the kits, decided to drop the idea of offering Pathway’s product in their stores.
    4. Yesterday Dan Vorhaus broke the news of a newly-launched Congress investigation into direct-to-consumer genetic testing sparked off by the Pathway controversy (the announcement cites “recent reports that at least one of the companies is seeking to sell personal genetic testing kits in retail locations, despite concern from the scientific community regarding the accuracy of test results”).

    As always, the best place to go for detailed legal analysis of this ongoing furore is the Genomics Law Report, and in particular Dan’s lengthy and incisive first response to Pathway’s announcement, and his subsequent analysis of the FDA crackdown.

    I have a few overall points to make here.
    The end of direct-to-consumer disease genomics?
    Nothing is certain yet, but it’s entirely possible that these events mark the beginning of the end of DTC genetic testing for health-relevant traits.
    The DTC personal genomics industry has so far enjoyed a bizarrely prolonged period of respite from the stifling regulatory embrace of the FDA and other regulatory bodies (while the technical validity of all of the major personal genomics companies is governed by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, there’s currently no regulation regarding the interpretation of the raw data).
    It has always seemed inevitable that this period would end with a regulatory crackdown, although the precise nature of the eventual regulation – and the events that would trigger the regulatory hammer to come down – were impossible to foresee. Now the hammer is dropping, and although its aim seems capricious (see below), there’s little doubt that its long-term impact will be massive. It’s certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that companies will be forced to entirely discontinue DTC provision of information for any health-relevant trait.
    Personal genomics companies are to some extent prepared for this eventuality. For instance, several of the major companies (e.g. Pathway and 23andMe) have split their disease risk predictions into a separate product from their more “recreational” offerings (such as ancestry, genealogy and non-disease traits), potentially allowing them to maintain a DTC revenue stream even if the DTC disease genomics angle was blocked. (Kudos to Dan Vorhaus for spotting the motives for this behaviour back in July last year.)
    Today, GenomeWeb reports that at least one DTC company has gone even further and dropped its direct-to-consumer offering entirely. Navigenics could probably also drop its DTC offering without much harm to its sales, since the company has by all accounts been spectacularly unsuccessful in tapping the DTC market. We may well see the same approach taken by other personal genomics companies in an attempt to stave off the regulatory claws of the FDA.
    This outcome would be an absolute tragedy for those of us interested in thoroughly exploring our own genomes. Anyone who has ever tried to get the raw data from their own medical tests from doctors will know how ludicrously difficult this is, due to a combination of bureaucratic incompetence and litigation-shy clinicians. Now imagine that difficulty, multiplied by the sheer scale of genome-level data and the near-complete ignorance of the vast majority of doctors about genetic information.

    Comedic blunders from the FDA
    While confusion reigns in the DTC genetic testing industry, this whole episode has revealed one thing very clearly indeed: absolute incompetence on the part of the FDA. One cannot help but shudder at the fact that such a transparently clueless agency wields so much power over so many industries.
    In a great article over at GenomeWeb, Kirell Lakhman points to a series of contradictions in public statements made by the FDA over the last week (in what he refers to as a “seemingly uncoordinated and contradictory investigation”).
    Here is an agency that has sat back and watched the industry (albeit lazily, given that it was apparently unaware of Pathway’s existence until the Walgreens announcement) for two years, giving no clear guidance regarding its regulatory intentions, and then suddenly announces that retail genetic testing is probably illegal via a quote in the Washington Post.
    In addition, the motive for stomping specifically on Pathway seems entirely arbitrary. Gutierrez said in an interview with Pharmacogenomics Reporter (subscription only) that “The fact is that Pathway’s bold move to make themselves noticed achieved its end and brought them to our attention”, suggesting that the agency would have been happy to let DTC companies continue to operate if they’d done so more quietly.
    It’s a doubly bizarre statement given that the industry in general (and 23andMe in particular) has been conducting aggressive marketing campaigns to the wider public for a long time. Why did the Walgreen’s campaign overstep the mark any further than, say, 23andMe’s appearance on Oprah or its zeppelin campaign? It’s impossible to know, especially in the complete absence of any substantive guidance from the FDA on what is or isn’t acceptable behaviour.
    Of course the power of the FDA is so massive, and so arbitrarily wielded (the technical term is “enforcement discretion”), that you won’t be hearing many public complaints from personal genomics companies out of fear of retaliation. Instead, the industry is lining up to vow full compliance with the investigations from the FDA and Congress, like shop-keepers telling everyone who will listen how great a job the local gangsters are doing even while they fork out their protection money.
    Do we need FDA regulation?
    Regular readers will know that I think – for all its faults – the personal genomics industry provides a net benefit to society. Sure, the information provided by personal genomics tests currently has limited utility in terms of health prediction, at least for most of us; but by allowing people to engage with their own data, and generally doing a pretty good job of conveying the complexity and uncertainty of modern genetics, personal genomics companies are non-trivially increasing genetic awareness and literacy, an important public service as we enter the genomic era.
    It’s worth emphasising that the major personal genomics companies have done a fairly respectable job of self-regulation so far: 23andMe et al. generally present genetic risk information in a way that is far more accurate and accessible than anything we have seen (or are likely to see in the near future) from the medical profession.
    It’s also important to note that precisely zero evidence exists for the notion that genetic test results are likely to cause serious harm to consumers. So while Arthur Caplan may fret over the idea that customers assigned a low risk of heart disease might “go off and drink milkshakes all day”, the existing sociological evidence suggests that genetic risk data alone has relatively little negative effect on consumer behaviour or mental health.
    There certainly is room for regulation that filters out the bottom-feeders in the industry – but that is not necessarily a job best done by the FDA. As Dan Vorhaus points out, the Federal Trade Commission, as an agency focused on consumer protection, might be well-placed to step in. In addition, the recently-announced NIH genetic test registry – particularly if it is made mandatory – will hopefully serve as a valuable resource for consumers, allowing them to make informed decisions without requiring them to have an ill-informed clinician hold their hand while they do it.
    By all means prosecute companies that make false claims of fact or provide poor-quality assays. By all means provide consumers with additional resources to allow them to make informed decisions. But don’t create regulation that makes it hard for new companies to enter the space or introduce new technologies; and if people decide that they don’t need their doctor to peer into their own DNA, let them make that choice.
    Final thoughts
    After years of speculation, the long-awaited crackdown has come. Exactly what type of industry will emerge from the other side is still completely unclear, and we can only hope that regulators restrain themselves from the heavy-handedness they have inflicted on other industries.
    Personal genomics is a young field, but it’s also a crucible for the future of personalised medicine. Excessive regulation at this stage will cripple innovation in the industry by raising the cost of starting new businesses and developing novel approaches. If the FDA is given free rein to stifle the field with formidable regulatory requirements this will do long-term damage to the development of personalised medicine.
    I’d encourage US readers to make their thoughts on this known – write to your politicians, tell them what you’ve learned from your own genome, and inform them about what a terrible idea excessive regulation would be for the future of medicine.
     
Please visit WP-Admin > Options > Snap Shots and enter the Snap Shots key. How to find your key