This could have been a great, albeit needlessly pricey, water-based serum with retinol and niacinamide suitable for normal to oily skin. The problems start with the inclusion of sugarcane extract, which is really useless in a skin-care formula. Most companies stopped using it in the 90s because there was no research showing it helped skin, because it doesn’t function in the same manner as AHAs such as glycolic acid or lactic acid. The other issue is the inclusion of zinc sulfate. This ingredient is created from the reaction of sulfuric acid and zinc, and is one of the forms of zinc that can be a skin irritant (Source: www.naturaldatabase.com).
By the way, the claim that this product can improve microcirculation is silly, because just touching your face can do the same thing, so the claim isn’t as special as it seems. Other than price, the only concern is the inclusion of zinc sulfate, as mentioned previously.
This intensive reparative serum ensures delivery of a powerful combination of essential vitamins, bionutrients, and age-fighting antioxidants. This combination of ingredients hydrates, regenerates and increases microcirculation of the skin.
Water, Sodium Hyaluronate, Saccharum Officinarum (Sugar Cane) Extract, Zinc Sulfate, Pantothenic Acid, Niacinamide, Alpha Tocopherol, Retinol, Lysine, Glutamine, Vaccinium Myrtillus (Bilberry) Extract, Camellia Sinensis Leaf Extract (Green Tea), Phenoxyethanol
From a marketing point of view iS Clinical is trying to be yet another "cosmeceutical" line of products designed by physicians and pharmacologists. The owners of iS Clinical claim to have assembled a "world renowned" team to bring consumers the best in anti-aging skin care and what they describe as "anti-aging medicine," even though iS Clinical products aren't about medicine any more than a spoonful of sugar is about medicine (with apologies to Mary Poppins).
The "iS" in the brand's name stands for "innovative skincare." Couple this with the "clinical" portion of the name and it's hardly surprising that lots of consumers concerned about aging skin are wondering yet again if this is the final frontier for their older looking skin. We'll cut to the chase: iS Clinical isn't the anti-aging line to beat, buy, or borrow. In many ways, several of their products are either dated, antiquated formulations or basic one-note products. Overall, their products don't hold up to lots of other products with far superior formulations, many of which cost a lot less, such as Cosmedicine, Clinique, Estee Lauder, and Paula's Choice to name a few.
The prices for iS Clinical products are definitely on the high side, which is one reason why it's critical that you know which ones are worth the splurge and which ones are a must to avoid, not only for the sake of your beauty budget but also for the health of your skin. As usual in such lines, there are a handful of outstanding products to consider, but there also are a lot to watch out for.
Back to the team behind this brand: If they're indeed preeminent men and women in their fields, it's truly embarrassing that they've created products whose claims are not based on proven, substantiated scientific research. For example, instead of using thoroughly researched exfoliants, such as glycolic acid or lactic acid, iS Clinical went back to the 1990s fad of including mixed fruit and sugarcane extracts for exfoliation. Think of it as using a typewriter instead of a computer; why would you ever go back to a typewriter?
Another shortcoming is their Active Serum for acne, which contains a lot of skin-damaging alcohol and menthol (both really bad for skin), while being void of ingredients proven to benefit blemish-prone skin.
One more point: iS Clinical promotes, under their "Integrity" header on their Web site, the idea that they "…strive to dispel myths in the skincare industry by disclosing and clinically validating all of the ingredients we use." However, there is absolutely not a shred of clinical validation anywhere to be found. It seems that iS Clinical wants you to think they're doing the consumer a favor by providing ingredient lists on each product, but disclosing ingredient information is required by law and has been in the United States since 1976—it's not a discretionary decision cosmetics companies can sidestep, although some have tried! Besides, the company's site only lists key ingredients (those they want to play up) so you're still not getting the full story.
It's almost funny, but not really, that as a way to explain the rationale behind their formulas, they have a section on their Web site called "Clinical Opinions." Well, "opinions" are not the same as scientifically validated research, and that's precisely what is lacking. In fact, the information presented has little to do with skin care. It's actually bizarre because the only thing they provide is a set of the same tired before-and-after pictures and improvement charts for certain products; but, without knowing key details about how the tests were performed and under what conditions the pictures were taken, they aren't just opinions, they are misleading.
For more information about iS Clinical, call (888) 804-4447 or visit www.isclinical.com.
Note: Now this was a first! When my team contacted iS Clinical to inquire about their animal testing status, we were told that they do not make this claim because they believe human beings are animals, and of course, their products are meant for people. We have no idea what that means.