As the medical profession is becoming more cognizant of the consequences stemming from a diminished testosterone load, an ever increasing number of doctors are starting to use testosterone therapies of one sort or another. Unfortunately, I think most are doing a bad job by failing to acknowledge several important factors.  

To begin, it is important to understand that testosterone produced by the testicles and circulating in the bloodstream is not the only hormone involved in producing our virility. Up to 50% of a young man’s virility actually stems from the testosterone which is produced locally within the tissues by a pro-hormone called dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). This testosterone is made locally within the tissues, utilized within the same tissues, and never makes it into the bloodstream. Hence, blood tests for testosterone do not detect and measure this portion of androgen. The closest we can come to measuring these locally produced androgen levels correctly is by following the dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS). If all you do is measure testosterone while ignoring the DHEAS, you’re going to miss 50% of the factors that influence a man’s virility. 

Another problem is that recognition of the conversion of testosterone into estrogen is usually neglected. About midlife, as a man’s testosterone level naturally starts declining, his metabolism shifts towards fat. This is because the same cells that produce muscle can also become fat cells. Whether they turn to muscle or fat depends on the chemical environment that is present in the body at any given moment. The decrease in androgens, and the increase in inflammation that accompanies aging, along with a rising percentage of body fat, shifts the preference for the cells towards the production of fat instead of muscle.  

One reason for this trend in cell production is that male abdominal fat contains a high level of an enzyme called aromatase, which converts testosterone into estrogen. The increased estrogen load shifts the metabolism further towards fat, which in turn contains more aromatase, converting more testosterone to estrogen, in a self-perpetuating cycle. As the average, midlife man ages, his testosterone spirals lower and lower while his estrogen level tends to rise. It is not unusual in our clinic to test a husband and wife only to discover that his estrogen is higher than hers. Unfortunately, most doctors never bother to check a man’s estrogen level at all. As a consequence of this oversight, a man will often receive a large dose of testosterone, which he promptly converts into estrogen. In an effort to regain his virility, he ends up growing breasts. 

An additional difficulty to watch for is the conversion of testosterone to Dehydrotestosterone (DHT). Men have a variable propensity to shift testosterone into DHT at different points in their life as their enzyme levels are shifting. The failure to address this issue can result in increased hair loss, prostate enlargement, and suboptimal testosterone replacement values. 

If a doctor is going to do testosterone replacement therapy, he needs to address the problem in a comprehensive manner. This means that in addition to measuring testosterone, he also needs to pay attention to estrogen, DHEAS, DHT, and pregnenolone, a related pro-hormone that is often ignored. Pregnenolone can become DHEA, testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, or corticosteroids. Very few physicians doing testosterone replacement have even heard of this important hormone, but if a man’s hormone levels are to be competently evaluated, pregnenolone needs to be measured and monitored along with its metabolic byproducts. Although testosterone is an important hormone, failure to address all of these factors in one comprehensive package may result in doing more harm than good.

I wish life was that straight forward, but the data on statin use and prostate cancer incidence is complex. There are studies indicating that long-term use of statin drugs may decrease the overall risk of prostate cancer to some modest degree. On the other hand, a large study, published in September of 2009 and done here at the Seattle Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, indicates that statin users had no overall effect on prostate cancer incidence. Yet it did find that obese men who used statin drugs actually increased their risk of prostate cancer by almost 50%.

We have known for decades that men with a high animal fat intake have an increased risk of prostate cancer. People with high animal fat intake also tend to have high cholesterol and have a higher risk of being obese. Since these are precisely the folks at highest risk of having high cholesterol, and since high cholesterol is widely treated with statin drugs, it follows that these people would also have a higher risk of prostate cancer. Sorting out which risk factors are most important is a difficult and confusing project.

The bottom line is that all the information leads us back to one central fact that is buttressed by the research: Fat causes cancer. If you eat less fat, exercise more, and keep your weight under control, you will lower your risk of virtually all cancers.

A lot of people will have knee jerk skepticism that any drug can ever take the place of good old fashioned exercise. I, however, would not be one of them.  Now, I’m not saying that AICAR is necessarily going to replace the need for exercise but sooner or later something probably will.  After all, exercise fundamentally just sets off a series of bio-chemical changes in our bodies that have an awful lot of beneficial effects on us. There’s no reason why one day we couldn’t artificially mimic those changes.

I may be a hopeless optimist, but I believe that fundamentally the universe is knowable.  I believe that slowly but surely the human body will continue to yield its secrets to patient methodical research.  I believe the day will come when virtually any virus or bacteria can be defeated, when damaged limbs and organs can be easily replaced, when the ravages of time and gravity can be completely reversed, and I even believe that there are people alive today who will live to see that day arrive. 

Because I believe all of this, I think AICAR shows great promise. I see no evil in people who are able to be strong and healthy without it being a constant struggle, particularly in a society where the increasing need for productivity requires periods of sedentary living for larger numbers of us. 

However, before you cancel your gym membership and throw away your running shoes, AICAR is years away from human trials. When human trials begin, it may not have the same benefits for people that it has on rats. Assuming it does have those same benefits, it still doesn’t mean AICAR will provide all the benefits for the prevention of cancer and other diseases that exercise does. Plus, there is the issue of evaluating its long term safety. 

The time is surely coming when AICAR or some other drug like it will make gym’s obsolete but that time is probably still decades away.  Luckily, for those of us who are hoping to live long enough to see that time, there are ways we can get all the benefits of what AICAR hopes to eventually provide…we call it “exercise.”

People worry a great deal about cancer, but your chances of getting cancer pale beside the one-in-three shot you have of developing diabetes before you die. People tend to overlook diabetes since the disease has been manageable for decades. But managed or not, over the long term it will still ravage your heart, eyes, and circulatory system. 

The thing that’s so crazy about diabetes is that we still have a tendency to view and treat adult-onset diabetes as a purely genetic disorder. The truth is, however, diabetes is like heart disease in that your genetics can certainly be a contributing factor but it is lifestyle that really makes the difference. A sedentary lifestyle and endless chili cheese fries can destroy the best of hearts and a series of poor lifestyle choices can make a diabetic of the very best of us. 

The good news here is that, just like with heart disease, even if you lost the genetic lottery and happen to have inherited a set of genes that make you highly susceptible to diabetes, the right lifestyle choices can seriously mitigate your risk of developing it.  Better yet, even if you’ve already developed a case of full blown diabetes, the right lifestyle choices can go a long way towards minimizing its impact. In fact, in virtually every case I’ve dealt with (and I deal with a lot) you can functionally eliminate the disease most of the time. Genetics can put you at increased risk. But it is your lifestyle that is going to make the difference in being at risk and actually having the disease.

At this point, you are probably wondering what lifestyle choices you need to make in order to avoid the onset of diabetes. Let me tell you in three simple steps. All three are simple to understand, but will require that you make consistent adjustments to how you live.

1. Lose the belly fat

I can’t stress this one enough. A spare tire around your belly for men or women is a huge predictor for who will or won’t develop diabetes. It’s also worth remembering that your body won’t burn off your tummy first just because you choose to work your abs. If you want to burn fat with exercise, working your legs or any other muscle is just as effective. This leads naturally to step 2.

1. Build muscle

Muscle burns blood sugar voraciously and without insulin. It’s part of the reason you could eat whatever you wanted when you were 18, never gain an ounce of fat, and weren’t diabetic…and why kids today are so much pudgier than my generation.  Physical labor and physical play are practices we need to rediscover. We do much less of both as we get older, just about the time we need to do more of it to get the same benefit. (There are ways around that too, but that’s a whole other blog)

1. Avoid sugar and take your medications

I know…you thought the whole point here was to get better so you wouldn’t have to do this one. Sorry. Just like someone who’s had a heart attack may one day get off their heart meds, you too may one day get off diabetes medications. However, that comes after you’ve lost the belly and built some muscle. For now you need to focus on staying healthy enough to do that and that means taking your medicine. As for the simple carbohydrates, one day you may be able to handle them again. But for now, all of your carbohydrates need to be in the form of vegetables and fresh, woody fruits such as apples and pears.

These are not easy changes we’re talking about here. You’re going to have missteps and fall off the wagon. The trick is not to allow yourself to get discouraged when that happens. You just pick yourself up and start over. You have to. Your life really does depend on it.

Firstly, it is important to understand what cancer is. Our DNA is comprised, to a large extent, of carbon. A small percentage of that carbon is radioactive and is constantly breaking down, resulting in a mutation of the cell. Most of those mutations wind up being fatal only to the cell in question, but the fact that you have so many cells in your body means that approximately six times every second, you have a cell somewhere in your body that is mutating. Now, of those mutating cells, a small percentage will result in the uncontrolled cell divisions we call cancers. When a cell mutates and goes wrong, we have immune mechanisms in place to identify that those cells are no longer team players and eliminate them before they become dangerous. So, cancer spreads in the body when the cellular machinery and our immune systems both fail in their jobs simultaneously.

This means two things: You are never going to bring your risk of getting cancer down to zero but you do not need to build your life around avoiding cancer either. In other words living down in a hole in fear isn’t your best option!  So what is the best strategy to adopt? Building a robust immune system!

We’ve been mutating six times a second for as long as humans have existed on earth and our bodies are designed to cope with the occasional mutation. Full blown malignant cancer is as much a failure of our immune systems as our DNA. That’s why it’s no coincidence that so many things I’ve been telling you for years, such as improving your immune function through vitamins, anti-oxidants, exercise, and weight loss, also turn out to be cancer fighting interventions. Immune support is cancer resistance…the two are not separate issues at all. Along with your regular regimen of medical care, boosting your immune system is the most helpful thing you can do to prevent cancer.

Pick your battles! Eat peanut butter if you really love it; clean (preferably distill) your water; quit smoking; don’t buy a home right next to the freeway; stand a bit upwind when filling your gas tank; and please don’t spend time in tanning beds. Be smart! Bottom line, minimize your risks where you can but don’t panic over the times when you can’t. The number one best defense against cancer isn’t just trying to avoid everything that causes it. The best defense is building the optimal you!

I think the perception that we doctors don’t know anything derives from how often patients get told crazy, conflicting health advice. Consider a man who was born in 1949 who would be about 60 now. In his lifetime, he would have seen doctors talk about which brand of cigarettes had the greatest health benefits and that a hearty breakfast of bacon and eggs was healthy. However, he would also remember being told that the cholesterol in eggs and bacon would kill him but then he’d recall being told that maybe it wasn’t as bad as we originally thought. More recently, he has probably heard that there is good and bad cholesterol and he needs to get more of the good and watch out for the bad.

Is it any wonder, after all that, he glumly concludes that we doctors just don’t know what we’re talking about? The problem here is that there’s a vast difference between not knowing everything, and not knowing anything. The few things we know for certain are undeniable facts, as hard and inarguable as a brick. Everything else comes down to playing the percentages.

Why is that? I’m glad you asked. You see, humans are vastly complicated animals, with extremely complex lives. So it can often be very difficult to figure out how best to treat a particular health problem. It could get better because of something you did, something the patient was doing on his own, or some quirk of his DNA that makes him better able to fight it off on his own.

If we want to be sure, we would need to take groups of identical twins, lock them in cages from infancy, feed them identical diets and then infect them with the diseases we want to study and just treat one of them. Of course, that would be nothing short of ridiculous, so in practice we settle for less radical methodologies.  

For example, let’s take the French study on breast cancer risk with different types of estrogen that I mentioned in my last blog. Click here to view the study. They studied 54,000 women over a 10-year period of time, some of whom were on the classic horse-urine hormone cocktail (includes 36 hormones from the urine of a pregnant horse) and some who were on human estrogen. When examining studies like this, we have to take the number of breast cancers that are likely to occur in any random population and measure what the difference is between cancer cases of our test population and the general population.

Hold on… let me explain the math here. If the number of cases of cancer in our test groups corresponds exactly to what you’d expect to find in the general population, we rate this “relative risk factor” as 1. Any number above one means there was more cases than you’d find in the general population and any number less than one means there was fewer than you would expect to find. So, a relative risk factor of 1.4 would mean we had a 40% higher instance of cancer. Or, a relative risk factor of .9 would mean we had 10% few instances of cancer.

Which, incidentally, is just what that French study showed. The horse-estrogen cocktail group had a 40% higher incidence of cancer than the general population and the more human estrogen group had a 10% smaller incidence of cancer than the general population. 

Does that mean that human estrogen will cut your breast cancer risk by 10%? Actually it doesn’t. The intellectually-honest scientist at this point will tell you that the data means just what it says and nothing more. What we can say for certain is that they definitely didn’t have a higher incidence of cancer like the horse-estrogen users did. 

As more studies are conducted and we obtain more data, we may find that there was some other factor that was responsible for that 10% lower incidence. Of course, we could also find that it was actually the human estrogen, with proper diet, exercise, and careful measurement and meditation, that made the difference. Many believe, as I do, that we can most likely increase the number of lower incidences of cancer.

All in all, the results of the study are both scary and encouraging. Scary because the majority of medical doctors are still prescribing the horse urine approach to estrogen. Encouraging because many women are realizing that they now have an option that will accomplish their objective without compromising their general health.

This is the difference between not knowing everything and not knowing anything. Just because you don’t know everything doesn’t mean you can’t (or shouldn’t) play the odds with the data you do have. So, if I were a woman who was understandably worried about the 1 in 8 chance of developing breast cancer in my lifetime, human estrogen would be the way I would bet.

Oh… I’d also point out that while they didn’t have the whole story on cholesterol in the 80’s when they suddenly told people eating bacon and eggs for breakfast every day was bad for them, they weren’t really wrong either. It’s still a bad idea.

There’s so much wrong with that position I scarcely know where to begin. First off, we scarcely need to discuss my opinion of the ‘the natural process of aging’. Suffice it to say, the natural process of aging is one of slow decline into a pitiable, crippled, wretched shell of a human being. My opinion: we don’t have to just give up like that.

The medical community started giving estrogen to post-menopausal women nearly 50 years ago for excellent reasons. Without it the health and quality of life of post-menopausal women was declining so precipitously, it became apparent that something had to be done. Careful study of the situation revealed that loss of estrogen caused much of the rapid decline seen in menopause. The logical thing to do was to get these women some replacement estrogen. Of course back then, Estrogen was a poorly understood chemical. They didn’t know how to make it so they began looking in nature to find a workable solution. Amazingly, what they found was that pregnant horses produced vast amounts of readily extractable estrogen in their urine. So they extracted it, added some preservatives and transmitter chemicals to make it a little more usable to the human body, and voilà! Premarin was born.

Premarin was fantastic stuff in its day. It addressed many of the crippling effects that women had previously suffered. Aside from a few side effects like weight gain, Premarin rapidly became the standard of care worldwide for the treatment of menopause. Sadly, there wasn’t a lot of concern about the long-term effects. At the time, the period between the onset of menopause and the end of a woman’s life was short enough that women were not expected to see the long-term deleterious effects.

Fast forward to today. Thanks to advances in medicine, women can expect to live another 30 years beyond menopause, making the long term consequences of Premarin clear. Premarin, when coupled with Provera (medroxy progesterone acetate), substantially increases your risk of breast and ovarian cancers. Suddenly the debate rages: do we keep prescribing Premarin or just accept the osteoporosis, heart disease, sleep issues, hot flashes, memory loss etc. that come with menopause?

Of all the stupidity, it’s been 50 years, people! We can now make real human estrogen with no preservatives or transmitter chemicals needed. We can measure the estrogen in your blood and adjust the dosage until you’re getting exactly what you had as a young girl in exactly the right amounts. The question shouldn’t be Premarin or nothing. Neither is a workable option. The real question is why don’t we use the vastly superior tools developed over the last 50 years to give women the best care possible?

Again, Premarin was great stuff in its day but that day is past. It now belongs on the ash heap of history next to the use of mercury as a cure for syphilis. It’s also ridiculous to claim that because the Premarin/Provera combination is genuinely dangerous that all Estrogen therapy is equally dangerous. Not all hormone replacement is created equal. Roughly 100 million women have taken estrogen birth control pills for up to 20 to 30 years in a row without a rise in breast cancer. In fact there are studies that show a decrease in breast cancer in women who use some form of estrogen-based birth control pills. Read the article here. Why then do some pretend that all estrogen is equally dangerous?

In Europe, human-type estrogens and real progesterone, instead of Provera, are more frequently used. There are large studies that show that this more natural combination not only does not cause a rise in breast cancer risk but also that the risk of ovarian cancer actually declines by about 10% below the level seen in non-hormone users.

Rather than spending more and more research dollars beating up on an outdated 1950’s technology, let’s move into the 21st century and use the tools that we have today: True Bio-identical hormone replacement therapy. The biggest problem that we face in optimal hormone replacement therapy today is the misconception that giving estrogen and progesterone constitutes adequate replacement. As we age there is a global decline in our endocrine system, also known as somatopause. All three sex hormones, testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone, decline dramatically. But that is a small part of the picture. DHEA, pregnenolone, non-protein bound T-3 and T4, growth hormone, and a variety of neurotransmitter compounds are all in freefall as you age.

In addition, cortisol production can either rise as a consequence of chronic inflammation and stress or can drop as a result of adrenal fatigue. In the vast majority, insulin levels are rising to dangerously high levels. Unless you address all of the interrelated factors in a comprehensive and competent manner, you are going to be receiving less than optimal care. Longevity Medical Clinic is one of the few places in the country where all of these issues are addressed comprehensively. Treating somatopause in both men and women is what we do best. Anything less is simply not good enough.

Recently I read an article that instead of dealing with embryonic stem cells but rather induced pluripotent stem cells in mice. Click here to read the article. Induced pluripotent stem cells are basically skin cells or hair follicles that, through the magic of molecular biochemistry, have been returned to a non-differentiated stem cell state. For a while now there’s been some question as to whether induced pluripotent stem cells are actual undifferentiated stem cells. Or has the transformation into a library of tissues been limited by beginning life as skin cells?

Researches in China just answered that question. They are fully-fledged stem cells capable of becoming any sort of tissue in the body. That’s good news, since it means at least in theory, you can use induced pluripotent stem cells for anything you could use embryonic stem cells for.

They proved that growing a whole body from pluripotent stem cells is now possible. Essentially, the Chinese researchers took their manufactured stem cells and actually built an embryo. That embryo was then implanted in a womb and grew to term. A living genetic twin of the cell donor was born.

Remember, they are working with mice, not people. But don’t take too much comfort from that fact. Humans can have as much as 90% of their genes in common with mice. Before you read too much into that, remember that we also have something like 80% in common with bread yeast. The point is as far as cellular complexity goes, a mouse isn’t really a less complicated organism than a human; it’s just smaller. The process may not map directly from mice to humans but what we have here is a proof of concept. Refinements would most certainly be needed before you could use the process on a person but don’t doubt for a moment that those refinements are coming.

The allure of being able to one day take scrapings of skin cells and manufacture yourself a new set of eyes or a new heart are too appealing for the technology not to be developed. The question I have to ask at this point though is this: Given that an early stage embryo is essentially a mass of undifferentiated stem cells and that we’ve now demonstrated that viable fetus can be grown from that mass, is there a difference between embryonic stem cells from a fetus or induced pluripotent stem cells from your arm? Plant either of the stem cells in a womb and we could make babies; destroy either and you’ve destroyed a potential life. I don’t really know the answer. It’s something Hippocrates himself never had to think about but we’d better give it some thought. The technology isn’t going to wait.

To purchase the study I refer to in this article, click here.

I prefer distillation because it cleans to the highest standard, which is practical with our current state of science and engineering. This is not to imply that filters don’t work; they do. A filter will remove some or most of the chlorine, most of the dirt, and most of the nasty critters that may be coming out of your tap. On the other hand, a good distiller will remove essentially all of it. A good illustration of the limitation of filters verses distillers is to try putting saltwater through a filter. Generally when you put saltwater through a filter what you get out the other side is salt water. Distill saltwater and you get a boiler encrusted with salt and a pitcher full of nice clean water.

You can think of a filter as essentially a large sieve. Liquid pours through the tiny holes capturing the dirt that’s too big to fit through. But what if the dirt or micro-organism is smaller than the holes in the filter?  What if the pollutant you want to remove is a liquid? Suddenly the filter is woefully inadequate.

Modern filters typically will contain a chemical agent like Carbon, Chlorgon, or KDF which are designed to act as reagents bonding to specific pollutants or converting them into harmless inert compounds. The problem with this sort of chemical filtration is that all these substances only react to a limited number of materials. Every reaction will actually consume some of the chemical filter making the filter less effective every time you use it. Basically, filters only work for a limited duration and are only effective for a limited number of pollutants. Finally, most filters will not help you at all against the smaller single-celled, chemical-resistant critters that may come after you like Cryptosporidium (small waterborne pathogen common to natural bodies of freshwater).

Fortunately, distillers work on the principle that every material has a different boiling point. That boiling point is based on the atomic weight of the molecule and is unique to every material and compound on earth. By heating the water, we can separate the heavier materials that boil at higher temperatures than water, leaving them behind. We can also vent off the lighter materials that boil to gas at lower temperatures than water. What we’re left with is just water and nothing else. Distillation will remove the chlorine, metals, liquid pollutants, and salt. I have yet to meet the microbe clever enough to get you after being boiled alive. 

Once again, I’m not knocking filters. Like any technology they have limitations. Within those limitations, they work very well. Given the choice between tap water and filtered water, I’ll take the filtered every time although filtering simply does not do a good enough job. If a filter is all you have or can afford, then by all means use it, and feel good about using it. Depending on its quality, it can substantially improve the quality of your drinking water. However, the optimal choice between distillers and filters is undeniably distillers.

One solution I want to discuss in particular is the “B-word” (BOTOX^® Cosmetic). Are you scrunching your face, frowning and/or raising your eyebrows? If you are, just like your mommy used to say, you’re increasing the probability that it will stay that way. Just as your hands crease with time and use, so does your face. The solution is BOTOX^® Cosmetic, a purified protein produced by the Clostridium botulinum bacterium. BOTOX^® Cosmetic temporarily relaxes those expression muscles in your face you use over and over so the skin is smooth and wrinkle-free.

“But Dr. Mixon,” I’m hearing you say, “isn’t BOTOX^® Cosmetic poison?” The answer to that is yes but this has been blown way out of proportion. I’m sure you’ve heard me say it before and I’ll say it again; the poison is in the dose. We will never inject more than is necessary to see results to the point that it is harmful.

Let me explain. Let’s take a “natural” compound upon which our very existence depends: Water. Prepare yourself now…Water is poison. It’s true! Consuming large quantities of water will kill you. Likewise, consuming Botulism-contained goods will also kill you. However, the dose that is used for BOTOX^® Cosmetic injections is extremely minute. There’s also a lot of talk about the source and quality of the administration of BOTOX^® Cosmetic. Ours, from the original maker, Allergan, is purified and diluted thousands of times. Then relevant proteins are extracted to become the purest form of BOTOX available. When injected into muscles they can be titrated as much or as little as needed to reduce muscle contractions from frowning, squinting, raising your eyebrows, and puckering your lips.

An interesting fact: there are several FDA-approved BOTOX medical treatments. Most people don’t know that for decades, BOTOX has been used to relax muscles for children and adults who have spastic paralysis, bladder spasms, vocal cords spasms, and cerebral palsy, etc. This is a different type of BOTOX than what is used for cosmetic purposes; the dose is 2.5 times less. If you still need some more convincing, here are some little-known facts about BOTOX^® Cosmetic:

• BOTOX^® Cosmetic is the only treatment approved by the FDA for the temporary relief of moderate to severe frown lines between the brows in people 18 to 65 years of age
• There have been 9.5 million BOTOX^® Cosmetic procedures since 2002 – American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
• BOTOX^® Cosmetic has been the most popular aesthetic procedure for past 6 years – American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
• It has 97% patient satisfaction – Aesthetic Surgery Education & Research Foundation (ASERF), BOTOX^® Cosmetic Use Survey
• With one simple 10-minute treatment, results can be seen within a couple of days and can last for up to 4 months. No downtime, no anesthesia
• And most importantly, no one has ever died from BOTOX^® Cosmetic. EVER.

Here comes the part where I plug our aesthetic services…I invite you to a FREE consultation to meet with our newest Longevity Aesthetic doctor, Dr. Denise Cinciripini. Dr. Cinciripini has been working with BOTOX^® Cosmetic ever since it was FDA-approved in 2002. Like all aesthetic procedures, BOTOX^® Cosmetic is truly an art. Dr. Cinciripini has the experience to help you look your best, BOTOX^® Cosmetic or otherwise.

What else do you see in that awful mirror? An extra 10 pounds you never quite got under control? Age spots? Hair growing where you’d rather it not? Crow’s feet? The “11”’s between your eyes? Forehead lines you cover with bangs?

Of course, this didn’t happen overnight. It’s all part of the wondrous process of aging. Don’t you feel like a grown-up now? Truth is, we don’t want to feel or look like a grown-up anymore. We want to look as young as possible until the end. Thanks to decades of research and technological advances, think cellulite treatment and circumferential reduction by VelaShape. Think intense pulsed light that lifts away age spots and dull skin as well as giving you the freedom of permanent hair reduction. Think a procedure that actually stimulates your body’s own production of collagen, the Fractional Laser. And think a procedure that literally rids your complexion of those pesky lines from frowning, squinting, raising your eyebrows, and puckering your lips. BOTOX^® Cosmetic.

Call 866-86-YOUNG to schedule or click on the “contact” button at the top right hand side of this page to send us an email with your interests.