Has anyone used regular Cold Plasma facial moisturizer and Cold Plasma Plus? If so, what was the difference beside the smell? I know what the Perricone literature says, but I would like to hear from people who have actually used both products.
If this moisturizer represents Dr. Perricone’s “most comprehensive and efficacious work to date” then he should go on record and admit that, oops, all of the other anti-aging, antiwrinkle, and neuropeptide products bearing his name cost way too much and don’t work as well as Cold Plasma. Of course, that won’t happen, and Perricone will continue to sell numerous anti-aging products, each with beguiling claims, misleading hype about miraculous results, and offensive price tags. All the various products in this line are reminiscent of snake oil. Why can't Perricone decide which anti-aging product is his best and stop offering consumers so many misleading, terribly expensive products, all with similar claims?
Supposedly, Cold Plasma is the result of five years of scientific research. Never mind that Perricone didn’t publish any of this research and certainly doesn’t make it available in any form to the public. As for the "cold plasma" portion of the name, it refers to an ionized gas that has low energy. What that has to do with skin care is anyone's guess; most likely, Perricone chose the name because it sounds novel and new.
Perricone proclaims this product can take care of the 10 signs of aging. Whether your concern is wrinkles, large pores, redness, discolorations, loss of firmness, and on and on, Cold Plasma is alleged to be the cure, promising “extraordinary results.” On the other hand, it doesn’t even contain a sunscreen, so that’s one contributor to signs of aging that it can’t address. But there are lots of other issues this product can't address, including acne and loss of firmness.
The results that Perricone claims this product can provide are due to what he calls an “ionic-suspension carrier.” That does sound impressive and scientific until you realize that ions (an atom or group of atoms that has lost or gained one or more electrons, making it positively or negatively charged) are suspended in lots of products, from skin and hair care to medicines. Using ions in a suspension isn’t a guarantee of a superior or groundbreaking anti-aging product; it’s just a way to make any moisturizer sound more special than it is, and an attempt to justify the product’s cost.
Perhaps the most laughable claim made for Cold Plasma is that its technology is said to “understand” your skin. You’re asked to believe that this product “determines the nutrients” your skin needs to stay healthy and youthful, which is physiologically impossible. The claim, of course, is absurd, but your skin does need a complex, wide range of ingredients to reach a healthy, youthful state; unfortunately, Perricone included only a handful of beneficial ingredients in this product, so even if this product could tell what your skin needs, it wouldn’t be able to provide it because it isn’t in here. What’s more, the jar packaging won’t keep any of the ingredients that are in here stable once it is opened. What a bad joke for the consumer. Is there some sort of consolation prize for a product that purports to give skin everything it needs yet is incapable of doing that?
Using this product in lieu of other, less expensive options in better packaging and with even better ingredients is surrendering to the undeserved hype that doctor-designed lines tend to have—and Perricone often leads the pack. And spending this much money on any single skin-care product is foolish, plain and simple.
A few more comments: as with most of Perricone’s anti-aging products, this contains dimethyl MEA. Also known as DMAE, this ingredient is controversial because research has shown conflicting results. It seems to offer an initial benefit that improves skin but these results are short-lived and eventually give way to destruction of substances in skin that help build healthy collagen (Sources: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, November-December 2007, pages 711–718; and American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, Volume 6, 2005, pages 39–47).
Interestingly, there is a formulation challenge when using DMAE in skin-care products. In order to maintain efficacy and stability, the product’s pH level needs to be at least 10. A pH of 10 is highly alkaline, which isn’t good news for skin. A high pH like this can increase bacteria content in the pore and cause dryness and irritation. Moreover, since almost all moisturizers (including serums and eye creams) are formulated with a pH that closely matches that of human skin (generally 5.5–6.5, which is on the acidic side of the scale), in all likelihood the DMAE used in skin-care products cannot have any prolonged functionality. (Source: Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Supplement 72, 2008, pages S17–S22).
Most likely to no one’s surprise, Perricone’s Cold Plasma moisturizer now has an eye-area counterpart. Other than the inclusion of an emollient thickening agent suitable for dry skin, the ingredient list and incredibly tempting claims for Cold Plasma Eye is remarkably similar to the original Cold Plasma, which of course begs the question of why a separate version for the eye area was needed, though it does help sell more products. Regarding the "cold plasma" portion of the name, it refers to an ionized gas that has low energy. What that has to do with skin care is anyone's guess; most likely, Perricone chose the name because it sounds novel and new.
Nothing about this product is ideally poised to address signs of aging around the eye. In fact, there’s no practical reason why the original Cold Plasma couldn’t be used around the eye, too. Why you’d want to do that is another story, because both versions have their share of problems. Chief among them is jar packaging, which won’t keep the many light- and air-sensitive ingredients stable during use. In the case of Cold Plasma Eye, for almost $100, you’re getting an eye cream whose key anti-aging ingredients won’t last for more than a few weeks after opening at best. Secondary to the jar packaging is the inclusion of fragrance chemicals such as farnesol and linalool. These ingredients are bad news for all skin types because the irritation they cause can diminish healthy collagen production—and that’s not the way to look younger. Curiously, the original Cold Plasma product is fragrance-free (so the eye area gets fragrance but the rest of the face doesn’t?)
Without question there are some intriguing ingredients in Cold Plasma Eye; it’s just not the breakthrough product it’s made out to be and Perricone hasn’t published any research to support his claims. The third ingredient, phosphatidylcholine, deserves some explanation. Phosphatidylcholine is the active ingredient in lecithin. Every cell membrane in the body requires phosphatidylcholine (PC). It is also a major source of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Acetylcholine is used by the brain in areas that are involved in long-term planning, concentration, and focus, but all of that information is associated with ingesting PC, not putting it on the skin. PC is considered a very good water-binding agent and aids in the penetration of other ingredients into the skin. It absorbs well without feeling greasy or heavy (although other ingredients can perform similarly, including glycerin, ceramides, and hyaluronic acid) (Sources: Skin Pharmacology and Applied Skin Physiology, September–October 1999, pages 235–246; and Journal of Controlled Release, March 29, 1999, pages 207–214.)
Lastly, consider this: if Cold Plasma Eye is such a miracle, why is Perricone still selling numerous other eye-area products, all with similar amazing claims? Wouldn’t it be best to admit that those don’t work as well and that Cold Plasma Eye is the one to buy? Of course, that won’t happen and none of this nonsense will stop many women from buying (literally and figuratively) into the too-good-to-be-true claims.
Cold Plasma Sub-D is another product from Perricone’s Cold Plasma range, despite the original Cold Plasma product being touted as does-it-all wonder. Clearly Perricone didn’t believe his own claims are he would’ve stopped with the one, so-called revolutionary Cold Plasma moisturizer!
The key selling point of this pricey moisturizer is that it reduces sagging and signs of a double chin. However, this does nothing of the sort and is in no way a reliable replacement for a surgical (or even a non-surgical, light-based) cosmetic corrective procedure. As for using this on the neck, it holds no special benefit for skin in this area, and in fact you don’t need a separate moisturizer for your neck (a well formulated facial moisturizer and/or serum can and should be used on the neck, too).
Cold Plasma Sub-D contains many of the same ingredients Perricone uses in his other products, including dimethyl MEA, which has its share of controversies. The second ingredient is glycolic acid yet the pH of this product keeps it from functioning as an exfoliant. Since the dimethyl MEA (also known as DMAE) is also pH-dependent, it doesn’t work with AHAs like glycolic acid. The former requires an alkaline pH for efficacy while the latter requires an acidic pH to work—you simply can’t have it both ways.
Perhaps most disappointing is that the jar packaging won’t keep several key anti-aging ingredients this contains stable once you’ve opened it. That’s a shame but especially so for a moisturizer that costs this much. In the end, Cold Plasma Sub-D isn’t worth your time or money. If you’re tempted by Perricone’s claims, remember his classic quote from the doctor as seen in a November 18, 2001 New York Times article: “If you promise them an unlined face, you can sell them anything!”.
Note: Many women who've tried this product have commented on its scent, often comparing it to rotten fish. If you decide to try this (and we urge you to reconsider) be sure you're OK with its aroma.
Community Profile
Sign In
Sign In
Close
