Snake oil?

[epipapilla]

@ Pboy101,

when I first took a glance at you pictures I instantly thought, "Oh my days, where is the hair loss?"

At further detailed inspection of your pictures, the only hair loss that appears visible is that of what appears to be thinning hair in your right temple. But then, I noticed the direction of the light shinning onto your right temple, and I know that this can make your hair there appear like it it suffering more from hair loss...Next, I looked at the lighting in the 2 sets of pictures, and they are totally different, so I don't know how you can even make a "scientific comparison" from this one set of before and after pictures. Next, if you look at the angles of your head in all the comparison before and after, in the pictures of your left and right temples, the head angles are totally different. Lastly, your hair length in your 2 sets of pictures are totally different! Hair loss can easily be masked with longer hair in the "after" pictures....

So, for someone who totally seems obsessed with "science" well your before and after pictures, in my honest opinion, are not very "scientific".

Anyway, I don't want to sound like someone who is here to bash you. Hair loss is something that can affect peoples self confidence and outlook on life. Much of hair loss treatments depends on how you personally feel how it is working for you. If you feel that Finasteride is working for you then that is all that matters, just the same like if Herbaliser feels that his natural solution is working for him. There is not, and has never been a "one-fits-all" solution to any medical ailment and people should not be put down for believing that a natural solution is working for them.

Enjoy your hair, enjoy your life!

[Notcoolanymore]

This is just another anti propecia thread. Nothing new to see here. We can fight over the meaning of science or the FDA or any other nonsense and it isn't going to matter. It's not like this hasn't been tried countless times. Especially with all the anti propecia hype going around. Most of us have tried some type of natural remedy as our first response to hair loss and the majority of us just ended up losing even more hair. If you have some type of nutritional deficiency then yes this could possibly make a difference, but if you don't you are wasting precious time.

This shouldn't even be a debate of natural vs propecia. It should be a debate of what works vs what doesn't work. I have yet to read one instance of it working that wasn't suspect(anti propecia propaganda). I hate taking a prescription med to save my hair. I have no problem saying that at all, but it is what I have to take to try to prevent from going bald. If somebody wishes to try this natural treatment I will not steer them away from it. Go for it and please take plenty of pics of your progress. It will be a learning opportunity for us all.

[Pboy101]

By the way, there seems to be confusion or at least some degree of discussions that are not relevant to what we are talking about. The world natural here that I'm using just means something that's not supernatural (i.e. claims without evidence). If you find some substance that's found in nature (not lab created) that helps hair loss, that's cool. Document your usage and results and it will be independently verified by others and it will eventually become science. Instead of debating the definition of science, we should really be talking about what you are claiming and and evidence or reasons you got to make such claims and so far I see no good evidence to believe the OP's post on what he thinks works.

[Pboy101]

This statement shows that you are indeed very naive because from a scientific prospective, not much is actually known about human hair loss. I don't need to get into a argument with you or anyone else about this, but to accuse him or to suggest that he is a "certified nut" is totally out of order!

Perhaps when I said that he is a nut that was out of line and a bit of an ad hominem, for which I do owe the guy an apology. It is true that we don't know all that there is to know about hair loss, but that does not invalidate what we do know about hair loss.

What we do know:
1. Hair loss is mostly hereditary and caused but DHT weakening the hair follicles.
2. Finasteride/Dustasteride are anti-androgens that have been shown to block DHT attacking the hair follicles.

What we don't know:
1. Why people have varying degrees of success with finasteride.
2. The cure for hair loss.

Truth is that what do we know (finasteride) works.

If science is so good and has all the answers, let's see pictures of your hair which you have regrown due to "science". Yep, I guessed correctly, you are either too embarrassed or too scared to post pictures of your own hair loss (or hair regrowth, which I doubt you have anyway....)

Why are you so quick to answer your own question? Did you really bank on it that I can't provide pictures? lol... Pictures of when I started to notice hair loss and pictures taken moments ago are below, my friend. I have pictures taken the 1st of every month, documenting the shedding and regrowth as predicted by the big 3. Next month (around the 20th) will be my exact 1 year on finasteride and around which time I will post my full story and every picture so that the forum can see.

Then




Now

[Herbaliser]

I wanted to avoid this thread, but there is just too much nonsense. Hair loss itself is not science. The study of hair loss and potential treatments of hair loss IS science. Just like having a myocardial infarction is not science, but the study of cardiovascular disease and pathology is science. I can't even believe that this is a discussion. As mentioned previously, there are numerous medications that were originally discovered in nature, such as digitalis (digoxin), morphine, and penicillin. In fact, there are versions of FSH and LH for women that are collected from the urine of postmenopausal women and horses. These drugs became "legitimate" through years of testing and demonstrating that they worked, over and over and over and over and over and over and over, not because they worked in one person. There very may likely be some herb or micronutrient in the environment that has the effect of stopping androgenetic alopecia and growing hair back, but until that substance undergoes randomized double-blind controlled trials, it can't be considered a legitimate treatment. Forget the FDA, just have any legitimate organization of scientists test the natural substance in a large group of hair loss sufferers. If your hair loss is being cured by your regimen, then great. Find a researcher to study it for you, maybe you have a cure, but just saying you're using something and then posting only after pictures without a standard of comparison doesn't mean anything. You can post before pictures, it still means nothing. Why? Because you can't cure hairloss through a message forum.

Just showing the pictures i took before.
The problem is like i stated so many times before, is that a natural regimen will never be proven because there is to much money involved.
You are using the word cure and hair loss in the same sentence, and thatīs why people suffer from hair loss .

All i can say is that i been loosing hair since 15 years ago, and it suddenly stopped and new hair is growing dramatically.

[Aonyx262]

I wanted to avoid this thread, but there is just too much nonsense. Hair loss itself is not science. The study of hair loss and potential treatments of hair loss IS science. Just like having a myocardial infarction is not science, but the study of cardiovascular disease and pathology is science. I can't even believe that this is a discussion. As mentioned previously, there are numerous medications that were originally discovered in nature, such as digitalis (digoxin), morphine, and penicillin. In fact, there are versions of FSH and LH for women that are collected from the urine of postmenopausal women and horses. These drugs became "legitimate" through years of testing and demonstrating that they worked, over and over and over and over and over and over and over, not because they worked in one person. There very may likely be some herb or micronutrient in the environment that has the effect of stopping androgenetic alopecia and growing hair back, but until that substance undergoes randomized double-blind controlled trials, it can't be considered a legitimate treatment. Forget the FDA, just have any legitimate organization of scientists test the natural substance in a large group of hair loss sufferers. If your hair loss is being cured by your regimen, then great. Find a researcher to study it for you, maybe you have a cure, but just saying you're using something and then posting only after pictures without a standard of comparison doesn't mean anything. You can post before pictures, it still means nothing. Why? Because you can't cure hairloss through a message forum.

[Herbaliser]

This statement shows that you are indeed very naive because from a scientific prospective, not much is actually known about human hair loss. I don't need to get into a argument with you or anyone else about this, but to accuse him or to suggest that he is a "certified nut" is totally out of order!

If science is so good and has all the answers, let's see pictures of your hair which you have regrown due to "science". Yep, I guessed correctly, you are either too embarrassed or too scared to post pictures of your own hair loss (or hair regrowth, which I doubt you have anyway....)

Next week i will post new pictures from the same same angle, and these where taken 9 days ago.
Hair loss is not science, and thanks epipalilla.

[Herbaliser]

This statement shows that you are indeed very naive because from a scientific prospective, not much is actually known about human hair loss. I don't need to get into a argument with you or anyone else about this, but to accuse him or to suggest that he is a "certified nut" is totally out of order!

If science is so good and has all the answers, let's see pictures of your hair which you have regrown due to "science". Yep, I guessed correctly, you are either too embarrassed or too scared to post pictures of your own hair loss (or hair regrowth, which I doubt you have anyway....)

My pictures comes next week.
Have to let the new born to thicken a little for more dramatic effect (only 2 weeks between the pictures)
By fluke actually i discovered that the food intake was the key.
But it will never be scientifically approved because there is no money gain.

[epipapilla]

@ Pboy101,

I see that you wrote on 16 December 2014 in another thread:

Using anything that's unproven will eventually lead to snake oil results as history indicates. We know how hair loss works and that is the conversion of T --> DHT in your body and DHT weakens hair follical until they are virtually nonexistent. Without an antiandrogen like finasteride/dustasteride to combat this process, the battle for hair loss will eventually be lost. Please don't be a fool and fall for the "all natural vitamins and minerals" bullshit. Learn the science behind it and if there's no antiandrogen properties, it's probably useless. I would recommend getting a second look into finasteride because it's one of two products that are FDA approved for hair loss. Side effects can happen but it's very rare. I (and many others on this forum) have been on finasteride for the past 7 months and there are very little to no sides to speak of. Whatever you do, please do your research first and don't fall for expensive snake oil....

So, if you have continued with using Finasteride thus far then you should be at or near the 1 year mark of taking this FDA approved hair loss treatment, which is the time many people say that you should start seeing results. So, let's see pictures of your hair regrowth that you have obtained due to "science"!

[epipapilla]

You are a certified nut if you somehow consider our knowledge of hair loss not science. Regardless, I do believe most people are sane enough to put their trust in what can be shown to work. Good luck getting anybody to believe you without scientific backing.

This statement shows that you are indeed very naive because from a scientific prospective, not much is actually known about human hair loss. I don't need to get into a argument with you or anyone else about this, but to accuse him or to suggest that he is a "certified nut" is totally out of order!

If science is so good and has all the answers, let's see pictures of your hair which you have regrown due to "science". Yep, I guessed correctly, you are either too embarrassed or too scared to post pictures of your own hair loss (or hair regrowth, which I doubt you have anyway....)

[Guinny Pig]

Not necessarily. "Natural" should just mean that it's found in nature and that you can get it without having to synthesize it, like vitamins. Not saying it should be as potent as if it was synthesized or boosted in a lab, just that it's naturally occurring.

Maybe my definition is wrong...

[VegetaDBZ]

Natural treatments are shit unless one has deficiency in something.

[Herbaliser]

And by the way i said this works for me.

[Herbaliser]

Complete Newbie here, but I have to say that I agree and disagree. A lot of scientific discoveries have come from or mirror observations of nature, like aspirin for example. To quote wikipedia:

"Plant extracts, including willow bark and spiraea, of which salicylic acid was the active ingredient, had been known to help alleviate headaches, pains, and fevers since antiquity. The father of modern medicine, Hippocrates (circa 460 – 377 BC), left historical records describing the use of powder made from the bark and leaves of the willow tree to help these symptoms"

So everything natural isn't bad. But just saying "Hey, this works, try it!" is also wrong. You know you have something, so why not try to start measuring and recording results? I'm trying to do the same thing with S-equol in my thread (could really use some support though):

https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showth...finitive-proof

Thank you for sharing yours.
I have posted many times that iīm going put pictures as this was mostly accidental (experimental), because of my diet change.
Started a new thread regarding this (start your own topic) make your own conclusion.

[Guinny Pig]

Complete Newbie here, but I have to say that I agree and disagree. A lot of scientific discoveries have come from or mirror observations of nature, like aspirin for example. To quote wikipedia:

"Plant extracts, including willow bark and spiraea, of which salicylic acid was the active ingredient, had been known to help alleviate headaches, pains, and fevers since antiquity. The father of modern medicine, Hippocrates (circa 460 – 377 BC), left historical records describing the use of powder made from the bark and leaves of the willow tree to help these symptoms"

So everything natural isn't bad. But just saying "Hey, this works, try it!" is also wrong. You know you have something, so why not try to start measuring and recording results? I'm trying to do the same thing with S-equol in my thread (could really use some support though):

https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/showthread.php?19874-The-Great-Equol-Experiment-Need-your-help-to-get-definitive-proof