Snake oil?

[Trenblastoise]

Your last sentences proves my point.
For me hair loss is not science.

Not that I speak for the individual you just quoted. But for most users certainly(I would hope) we are interested in what can be demonstrated to work.


So if you got some ideas that does not work, you will not be able to demonstrate that they do work through scientific studies and get them independently verified.


The reason I surely hope most of the users here go with science, is because science works. It is demonstrable, and our best tool. To toss out science is to toss out the best ideas every made by humankind and is highly irrational, it will lead to superstition, like taking snake oil salesmen on face value/Faith (Faith:A firm, stoic, and sacred conviction which is both adopted and maintained independent of physical evidence or logical proof.) . At best maybe it works somewhat(In which case it can be demonstrated) or does nothing, worst case it can damages you.

And that's why we get stuff tested first. Like vaccines and other sorts of medication. I do want to point out that I find it extraordinary to have someone admit openly that they don't think hair loss is science. Perhaps you don't know what science is? I find it so utterly remarkable that someone can be so irrational with so much information available at their fingertips.

Science is defined as:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Or:

The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knolwedge generated through this process.


Doesn't this makes sense to you? This is how we figured out electricity, medication, biology, physics, pretty much all our knowledge that I can think of, well formulated into scientific theories:


A theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of experimental observations and the laws that are based on them.
Theories can also be used to predict related phenomena, so theories are constantly being tested.

[Herbaliser]

Not that I speak for the individual you just quoted. But for most users certainly(I would hope) we are interested in what can be demonstrated to work.


So if you got some ideas that does not work, you will not be able to demonstrate that they do work through scientific studies and get them independently verified.


The reason I surely hope most of the users here go with science, is because science works. It is demonstrable, and our best tool. To toss out science is to toss out the best ideas every made by humankind and is highly irrational, it will lead to superstition, like taking snake oil salesmen on face value/Faith (Faith:A firm, stoic, and sacred conviction which is both adopted and maintained independent of physical evidence or logical proof.) . At best maybe it works somewhat(In which case it can be demonstrated) or does nothing, worst case it can damages you.

And that's why we get stuff tested first. Like vaccines and other sorts of medication. I do want to point out that I find it extraordinary to have someone admit openly that they don't think hair loss is science. Perhaps you don't know what science is? I find it so utterly remarkable that someone can be so irrational with so much information available at their fingertips.

Science is defined as:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Or:

The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knolwedge generated through this process.


Doesn't this makes sense to you? This is how we figured out electricity, medication, biology, physics, pretty much all our knowledge that I can think of, well formulated into scientific theories:


A theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of experimental observations and the laws that are based on them.
Theories can also be used to predict related phenomena, so theories are constantly being tested.

Probably you didn't read my other posts.
For me, no hair loss is not science because hair loss suddenly became science for beneficial reasons (do you get my point?)
Thank you for clearing the definition of science, now iīm as patronizing as you are and at the same level.

[Pboy101]

Science is observable, repeatable, and/or testable, falsifiable, and explains our world in a natural (instead of supernatural) way. Science can be applied to anything that exhibits these characteristics; it's not a choice of the subject whether or not it can be considered science. 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.

[Herbaliser]

Science is observable, repeatable, and/or testable, falsifiable, and explains our world in a natural (instead of supernatural) way. Science can be applied to anything that exhibits these characteristics; it's not a choice of the subject whether or not it can be considered science. 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.

The thing is iīm not trying to convince anybody like you are.
And now you begin with sarcasm also, well that tells a lot and it would be horrifying for you if a natural treatment works.

[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

[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.

[Herbaliser]

And by the way i said this works for me.

[VegetaDBZ]

Natural treatments are shit unless one has deficiency in something.

[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...

[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....)

[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"!

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.