Keratene Alphaactive Retard RESULTS

[Dees Dab]

Wow, this is getting interesting, I'm holding off ordering.


1. How many people here used the LCMS test and proper protocol and has no other medical condition?

2. Ryan, I agree a 30 day refund policy should be a minimum.. red flag.

3. If using the LCMS is so critical, it should be up front in bold letters on their website so future customers can do the proper test.

4. Maybe the company can offer a credit/refund to those who get retested using LCMS and still show high DHT.

[ryan555]

As promised, here is a scanned copy of my results taken before with NO MEDICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTS whatsoever in my system, and then again after 9 days on the appropriately-named Keratene Retard pills twice daily, plus a 10th day with a single dose (the first day). I know, I know Keratene, it's the method I used. Or it's the lab. Or it's the doctor. Or it's me. Again, it worked perfectly to show my drop in DHT when I was on Finasteride, but maybe the lab techs search for your product in blood samples and then falsify test results when they find it.

[ryan555]

Wow, this is getting interesting, I'm holding off ordering.


1. How many people here used the LCMS test and proper protocol and has no other medical condition?

2. Ryan, I agree a 30 day refund policy should be a minimum.. red flag.

3. If using the LCMS is so critical, it should be up front in bold letters on their website so future customers can do the proper test.

4. Maybe the company can offer a credit/refund to those who get retested using LCMS and still show high DHT.

Right, and why is this never mentioned when testing products like Finasteride and Dutasteride (you know, products created by actual doctors that actually do what the massive companies who produce them claim they do, and who are overseen by the FDA and other legitimate oversight boards)? Why are different methods used in different studies always showing similar results? Why doesnt the FDA have the same standards that the prestigious Keratene company has? Is this a conspiracy against Keratene by the scientific community????

[Jcm800]

It's all very interesting - this outfit should be made to refund us all, no Q's asked, and shut down.

But that isn't going to happen, all the same - they've signed up - let's hear them try and dig themselves outta the hole they're in.

[ryan555]

It's all very interesting - this outfit should be made to refund us all, no Q's asked, and shut down.

They should be buried along side Folexen, TRX2, and the countless others who have made claims of positive scientific study results, only to be shut down or go out of business a few months later after they've gotten away with bags of our money and at the expense of many months of continued hair loss due to bogus treatments. These guys are more brazen, though, because some of us have actually taken the Pepsi challenge with their product, posted our results for all the world to see, and then they come online and call us liars or try to blame the method. These are some sneaky bastards. I wonder if a judge would be impressed with their efforts. I'm betting that Ripoffreport and other consumer advocacy groups won't be so willing to listen to their rhetoric and to dismiss customers who have taken the effort and expense to have blood tests and post them online to help protect other unsuspecting consumers.

[Jcm800]

Judge Judy would chew them up and spit em out, they've got some big bullocks tho, same as Whitfield, bio labs mailed me today claiming 80k happy customers? Really? Who are they?

[burtandernie]

I smelled snake oil when i first saw this. The burder of proof is on them and they have no solid proof anywhere near the level of say propecia. If the company doesnt prove it works to me I dont buy it. Only thing I would take if I do would be propecia

[ryan555]

HARIRI - can you provide a link to their blog? I can't find a link to it from their site and its not indexed in Google.

Guys I saw this in Keratene.com Blog:

Dear ryan555,

*

thank*you for the opportunity you created for us to shed some light into the matter.

We tried to post this reply directly to the thread on the forum, however up to the*date,*our request for an account has not been approved by the admin of that site.

Furthermore, all attempts from our legit users to reply to the topic results in the immediate deletion of the post or banning of the user.

This fact raises serious concerns with regard to the policy of the forum where you chose to post and it may indicate that the forum is not exactly welcoming alternative and properly*argumented*stands that conflict with the status quo dictated by a few posters.

Needless to say, such attitude can only sadden us and is in no way helpful for the avid reader willing to listen to both sides of the story, not just to your point of view.

*

As such, although we wanted to post our reply to the published reaction at baldtruthtalk.com/showpost.php?p=133979&postcount=1 much earlier, we were not able to do it due to factors named above.

*

First of all, we agree with the point of view of the people who are frustrated and who feel bad about spending time and money trying various solutions against hair loss.

It just feels bad and at some point in time, most of us, felt the bitter taste of being screwed.

*

Now, we’d like to go down to business.

Although the original post you created lack any form of argument and it should not be dignified with a detailed answer, we decided anyway to explain the situation not necessarily for you but more for the casual reader, confused by your post.

We addressed*JulioGP’s*post later in this text, and we’re confident he will agree with our point of view.

*

There are several major issues with your post and here is why:

*

The basics

First of all we can not verify whether you are a legit user, we do not know who you are, we have no data about you and from our regard you can very well be just a faceless person that just… dumps posts.

No client matching your sketchy details even attempted to contact us in the past 30 days from the date of this post, let alone to request a refund, based on your story.

We invite you to play fair and provide us with some form of sign of life and let us know who you are (via the support e-mail).

Please feel free to drop us a line.

As you probably know by now (if you are indeed a legit user), our customer care team is friendly and we always take good care of our clients.

*

Secondly, your post contains zero valuable and usable data. No values, no numbers, no nothing. All one reads is… noise.

Here’s where you might already get angry and start boiling but bear with us till the end if you can.

*

Setting aside the tone of your post and the belligerent attitude (seriously, we’re fine people over here but you should work on that a bit), according to your brief and colorful post, we read little and we understand even less.

No wonder other readers get all crazy and enthusiastic.

The less you say, the easier it’s to stupefy someone.

You simply scream <fraud/scam/lie> but further than that, we see:

-******no test results,

-******no lab info,

-******no name of the test method,

-******no time frame,

-******no protocol indicated,

-******no schedule,

in*other words, nothing to indicate you did a great job, like a jolly good fella.

*

Anyway, let’s skip the all-so-important details anyway – seems to be in fashion nowadays in these forums - and let’s move on now to your pain.

You practically say “I got bad DHT results”. Summarized, this is it.

No further details provided.

How are we doing so far? We’re correct, right?

Now let’s move to the core of your problem: the method.

*

The method

For the uninformed reader that doesn’t care about the fine print, here comes the boring part.

Nevertheless, it is not worth skipping as the devil is in details.

*

Our legit clients that wish to undergo valid DHT testing receive a package with some details, including the*do’s*and don’ts.

In it, we explain several important details, amongst which, the correct way and the correct method they need to choose in order to get the real deal and not some washed-down numbers on a piece of paper.

Currently on the market there are four major players in the medical lab department.

These players are called E IA, E LISA, R IA (all three being so-called the enzyme assay methods) and LCMS.

The letters represent the abbreviation of the names enzyme immunoassay, enzyme-linked*immunosorbent*assay, radio immunoassay and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.

Each and every one of these four entails a completely different mechanism of action and each and every one will deliver a completely different result, of the same sample. Bear with us more.

*

How did it go for you?

Since you did not provide any sort of clue with regard to which method the lab you chose used to process your sample, we’ll assume you did the same mistake likeJulioGP*did.

We assume you hopped out of the bus and got into a commercial med lab on the main street and we’ll assume they served you promptly with a needle in your vein.

After paying somewhere around the amount of 30 bucks (it’s not worth more actually), you got a piece of paper (or e-mail) with some confusing numbers on it, along with the scribbled EIA or ELISA or RIA remark next to your result.

How are we doing so far? We’re pretty close, right?

If we are right, you’ve just been screwed. And here it is why:

*

The problem with the assay method

The enzyme assay method was developed and introduced commercially in the late 60’s.

Its main role back then was to detect the presence of specific substances using a simple contact technique between the tested substance and a set of chemical components, and is able to give a fast response time for the tested sample.

Basically what the method does, is to confirm or deny the presence of the substance in the tested sample, using a true (substance present) or false (substance absent) mechanism.

The method was not designed to offer precise, accurate values of how much tested stuff is actually present in the sample.

However, in the past decades, this method has been refined and improved so that it could be used as a diagnostic tool in (quote) medicine and plant pathology, but it is still mainly used as a quality control check in various industries to check for presence of substances (end quote), not for measuring their exact amounts.

If it’s that unreliable, why is it then used? Because it is very cheap, affordable, reusable, portable and it does offer some sort of numeric indication of what is tested.

Depending on the chosen technical protocol, there are several substances involved, such as reagents,*reactives, validation chemicals, substrates and other procedural aspects, such as derivative calculations based on the principal substance.

*

The pitfalls

One of the main issues with the above is that when you try to accurately measure tiny amounts of substance, like DHT is, the method requires that the tested substance to be present in a specific minimum quantity, called threshold. This threshold varies per type of chemical substance.

Simply put, this is known as detection sensitivity range.

Anything under or above this range will be virtually impossible to test and the results will be a false positive or false negative.

Translated in numbers, this means that if the result shows say 187, the real value is actually off the scale and*can not*be accurately measured.

You will get however “a” value, but it is not necessarily “the” correct value.

*

Visualizing the amount to be measured

To help our readers better understand the challenges a measuring method faces, we’ll give the following visual clue.

Take a cake that weighs 1 kilo.

Now spilt it in 1 trillion pieces (that is 1 000 000 000 000).

Take only 1 of those 1 trillion pieces and measure it on a kitchen scale.

The weight indication your kitchen scale will show you… surprise, surprise: zero.

Conversely, if you take that 1 of those 1 trillion pieces and you put it under a much more sensitive scale – like the ones used to weigh stuff in a pharmacy, you might get some sort of result. But you’re still far for the real value.

Better still, take that particle and put it under an electron scanning microscope.

You will be able now to effectively*zoom*the particle, see its shape and measure its volume.

Based on the molecular mass of the ingredients and the given volume, you will be able to answer pretty darn close what is the actual weight of the particle.

This is the difference between the measuring methods.

FYI, in the human body there is almost at any given time roughly on average 700000 of those 1 trillion bits of DHT per one liter of blood.

When a blood sample is collected, merely 4 to 5ml are extracted.

The amount of DHT present in that sample is truly minute.

*

In one recent study, more than 180 pedigreed samples were analyzed in cooperation with the Endocrine Research Laboratory and the University*of*Colorado Health Sciences Center, by comparing DHT values measured using an enzyme assay method with the DHT values obtained by LCMS.

A lower correlation between the enzyme assay and LCMS methods for serum DHT than for serum T has been observed.

Serum DHT concentrations measured by LCMS were on average only 59% of those obtained with the enzyme assay method.

Simply put, if the enzyme assay method says 500, the real value is actually 293. And this was verified multiple times.

*

In the case of the enzyme assay method, the various factors explained above, play an equal or even greater impact on the real value of DHT.

According to our prior comparative testes, the difference in value varies between 40% and 80%, meaning the enzyme assay method will show either a higher or a lower value that varies within the range of the above percentages, but never identical or within acceptable limits of 3% variation.

The above text in numbers:

1 validated DHT sample tested using LCMS yielded the value of 963

2 same validated sample using enzyme assay method yielded the value of 1665

3 same validated sample using enzyme assay method with alternative handling protocol yielded the value of 589

4 acceptable variations would be values between 935 and 992

None of the assay methods correlated the results within the acceptable reference range, showing large variations, and as such being unacceptable as valid results.

*

For the past decade, LCMS is hailed as being the *golden standard* in measuring really small amounts of substances, such as DHT and other biological markers, previously thought impossible or extremely difficult to be accurately measured.

Due to its high accuracy, it is actually the only method validated and generally accepted by the scientific and research community when it comes to measuring accurately small traces of specific substances.

All other assays have their strong points and their specific applications, but their affinity to fail in delivering constant, accurate and consistent results in this department, make them an unreliable and a poor choice.

*

It is our belief that in order to ensure a high level of quality of the product and to endure the credibility amongst the medical and scientific community, we had to choose LCMS so that no doubts can be raised in connection with the accuracy of the measuring method.

*

If you still do not believe the above, we challenge you to do one very simple thing.

Pick up the phone and call any medical research lab in the endocrinology field, at your choice, and ask this simple question to their medical biologist:

“If I want to measure my DHT, which method should I choose for the best and most accurate result? The enzyme assay method or the LCMS method?”

The answer will be invariably LCMS. Go ahead, try it and let all the readers of this post know.

You chose to disregard any form of sensible judgment and you probably went straight for the least reliable method.

*

*

Understanding the user's need for proof

We understand the user's need for factual proof of the product's efficacy.

Since the product's main function is not to provide direct hair growth, many new users unfamiliar to the brand, asked us the "how do I know it works?" question.

The only definitive way to directly detect if and how well the product work, is by measuring the DHT level in blood.

It can happen (please do bother to consult the user manual!) that is some specific cases, as enumerated in the document, the product does not work or it has a greatly reduced efficacy (ie. severe genetic enzyme deficiency, various thyroid issues, endocrine dysfunction and several other situations).

This is no secret and we do not hide such details.

For this group of users, the product will simply be ineffective and we clearly state this aspect pretty much everywhere, so that they do not spend their money and waste their time trying it.

We make these details abundantly clear, not only on the site, not only in our shop, but also on the live support chat.

We do our best to manage the user’s expectations and we do not promise “a head full of hair” like other brands allege.

In the eyes of a genuine person, this is already a*GREEN FLAG.

*

We always encourage the potential prospects – that is people that are undecided and just try to shop around – to stick with their routine if they found one that works for them.

It is not in our interest to do this if we were in for a quick buck and it is not in their benefit to keep hopping from one treatment to another, if the one they use works ok for them.

This is yet another*GREEN FLAG*a genuine person would recognize.

*

We always encouraged the users to perform a correct and complete DHT test, not just for the sake of proving or disproving our point, but also because it is also useful for the user to know such details.

This is another*GREEN FLAG*a genuine person would recognize and it is also the reason why we always supported our clients in performing such tests, the correct way, according to the testing protocol and using the best and most accurate test method, LCMS.

If we had something to hide or if we had good reason to purposely sustain a fraud, we hadn’t bother to offer such a massive wealth of technical and procedural details, and quite contrary, we would try to hide any possibility of the user having any sort of tests done.

As you can see by now, all the above things are an integral part of our company policy to conduct a correct and morally ethical business and these practices - in our opinion at least – are not the trademarks of a fraudulent company, as you so loudly claim.

The intelligent reader able to read between your*noise, would beg to disagree with you and agree with our arguments.

*

We also explain very clearly to everyone willing to follow such routine tests why they should not jump into a bus and stop at the first commercial lab that says they do DHT tests.

Most of the main stream commercial labs use the enzyme assay method simply because the method is portable, affordable for the lab, they can offer a cheap retail price for the clients and it is versatile (meaning they can perform various tests with it, not necessarily DHT measurements).

We also explain the test protocol with the do’s and don’ts.

Anyone who chooses to ignore our recommendations - like you did - will get “bad results”, as you generously scream in your post.

The “bad results” you claim are nothing but a failure of the method you yourself chose to pay for.

Whether you choose to believe the arguments above or not, is entirely up to you and frankly speaking,*besides*the point.

We completely understand your determination in believing your result is correct and the method is fine.

The reality is that each test method will give you a different reading.

The most accurate is the result given by LCMS and one can verify this at any moment, simply by educating himself about the topic.

*

*

Final thoughts with regard to your case, in specifics

Fortunately, we do understand your reaction and all our team is sympathetic to your call.

Naturally, we don’t agree with your attitude and the manner in which you present it, but well, we can only assume this has to do with your personal issues.

We believe that hair loss is a serious problem, not to be taken lightly.

Most of our colleague had at some point in time major issues and major concerns when it comes to this topic.

Internally, in our company, we help each other and we test new compounds and new formulations, on ourselves first, before we even offer the prototype for larger tests on our most loyal and trustworthy clients.

Contrary to your belief, we understand and we actually care about our customers.

Ever since the very moment of the conception of the product you so passionately oppose, we tested and studies various aspects of its evolution and the ways in which we can improve and better its effects.

*

To reciprocate to your candor, we’d like to say that, unfortunately for you, you have squat.

You do not have a valid LCMS result. You have*a*result, but not*the*right**method.

You have not even posted the results and/or the method used, for that matter.

You did not specify whether you followed the correct test protocol and/or if you respected the basic requirements, as indicated in the protocol.

You just scream <fraud/scam/lie>.

Regardless of what you choose to believe, screaming <fraud/scam/lie> when you do not have the correct data is not only unjust, unfounded and incorrect towards our brand, company, team, researches and all the people that invest their passion and time to make things happen.

It is also incorrect towards the readers of the forum.

It is incorrect and confusing for the inexperienced users that are looking for correct and complete information and not for sensational blasts, like your post is.

*

If you are a legit user and if you indeed requested assistance from our team, it would be only fair if you amend your first post (the one on the first page of this thread) to include the following mentions:

1 you should mention that you did not even request the correct test protocol

2 you should mention that you did not respect our advice to use the test method as indicated by our team

3 you should mention that we did tell you not to use any other test method than the one indicated by our team, yet you choose anyway to disregard our advice

4 you should mention that you*can not*guarantee with 100% certainty that you actually followed the test protocol

5 you should be able to confirm that you do not suffer of any of the medical conditions, as required in the test protocol

*

The above situations apply for*JulioGP, where in his case we can confirm that he disregarded at least 3 of the 5 points above.

At least he is kind enough to admit that our point might be valid. You’re not.

All you do is just go on with baseless accusations, with zero support points, that further confuse the casual reader.

Without confirming or refuting the above requirements, your whole post is simply unfounded, lacks any form of solid arguments and must be as such completely disregarded by the diligent reader that understands the fact that measuring something with a random stick found on the side of the road does not equal measuring using a certified and verified unit.

We hope we got the message across and we’re happy to assist any concerned user, by e-mail.

*

We thank the readers for their time!

[ryan555]

I am going to find the appropriate EU authorities and file a complaint against these people like the "jolly good fella" I am. I'm sure they'll hide behind the fact that they are peddling a "supplement" and not a drug, but I think that their advertising, especially their "test results" are going to be of interest to some agency over there. I've spent a great deal of time in that part of Europe and I know they are generally much more progressive when it comes to matters of consumer protection that we are over here in the States. I was going to let this go, but they had to open their big mouth and question my integrity. Now I want the whole world to know about my test results.

[HARIRI]

HARIRI - can you provide a link to their blog? I can't find a link to it from their site and its not indexed in Google.

http://www.keratene.com/blog/content/reply_forum_100713.htm

[Swoosh]

I am going to find the appropriate EU authorities and file a complaint against these people like the "jolly good fella" I am. I'm sure they'll hide behind the fact that they are peddling a "supplement" and not a drug, but I think that their advertising, especially their "test results" are going to be of interest to some agency over there. I've spent a great deal of time in that part of Europe and I know they are generally much more progressive when it comes to matters of consumer protection that we are over here in the States. I was going to let this go, but they had to open their big mouth and question my integrity. Now I want the whole world to know about my test results.

Don't you find it prudent to let them come here and defend themselves first? I realize you are frustrated, but you have made this very personal. Their tone was a bit unprofessional but you were here in the forums bashing them first.

I am very interested in getting to the bottom of this as I too have spent a good deal of money on this product but all of your vitriol is muddying the waters.

Keep your cool and I am sure this will be resolved. There are other parties who are implicated in this if the results have been falsified. So far we have had no one without any vested interest (or qualified sources) chime in on the scientific legitimacy to their claim of testing methods.

[ryan555]

Don't you find it prudent to let them come here and defend themselves first? I realize you are frustrated, but you have made this very personal. Their tone was a bit unprofessional but you were here in the forums bashing them first.

I am very interested in getting to the bottom of this as I too have spent a good deal of money on this product but all of your vitriol is muddying the waters.

Keep your cool and I am sure this will be resolved. There are other parties who are implicated in this if the results have been falsified. So far we have had no one without any vested interest chime in on the scientific legitimacy to their claim of testing methods.

I wasn't bashing them. I actually defended them in another thread when someone who had never taken the product came on here to bad mouth them. I said to wait and get the actual blood test results. They came back and posted some condescending retort, lied about their users being blocked on this forum, questioned the integrity of this website, called into question the testing methods prescribed by physicians, and basically blamed the contradicting results on their customers. To make matters worse, they have told customers who requested a refund that they have a "14 day policy," which is completely impossible to achieve for someone actually attempting to get a test.

I am not going to apologize for being pissed. These companies continuously pop up and make these claims, take people's money, and cause them to lose ground while they waste time with these bogus treatments. And these guys actually challenged people to test their product, so we did, and they don't like the results we got. Should we all just continue to buy this stuff based on the promises of these clearly unprofessional profiteers are telling us?

Regarding the testing methods, it is true that LC-MS is more sensitive than ELISA and RIA tests. The latter are used because the former is generally prohibitively expensive and even inaccessible outside of an industrial or research laboratory setting. It would be nearly impossible for any normal person taking this product to go have a LC-MS diagnostic from for DHT, and I suspect that they know that. It gives them an "out" because they can easily dismiss any patient who shows a contradicting test result. Having said all that, there are tons of studies published showing the efficacy of ELISA and RIA methods and they are widely accepted by the medial community, even when life or death treatment decisions are based on them. Further, most if not all of the FDA studies on medicinal DHT inhibitors were done using these methods and they universally showed significant drop in DHT. Finally, as I stated, Julio and I are both former finasteride users who got our blood test using these same methods (I used the same lab!) while on finasteride and these techniques had no problems picking up the lower levels of DHT. In fact, I had my blood tested multiple times when I came off the drug and it went from 8 to 12 to 22 to around 50 in the weeks following sessation. I find it HIGHLY unlikely, if not impossible, that the same test that showed the decrease in DHT for finasteride would be 100&#37; ineffective for KAR, as this eloquent company rep claims.

In the spirit of fairness and for the sake of the community here, I will once again make myself a guinea pig for a week on this product if they can direct me to a lab in my area to have the exact same type of test that they used in their study (assuming it doesn't cost me thousands of dollars). But if the result is the same, they need to pull this product or at least provide more transparency into what may have gone wrong.

[Californication]

Ryan, you've been awesome throughout this. I, too, will get another blood test done soon to see if my before results are different than my after ones.

[ajays]

I agree with swoosh. To start with, kudos to ryan and julio for their time and effort in getting blood tests done and publishing their results. But as I mentioned earlier there are and will always be 2 sides to a story and we definitely need to tone down the rhetoric,it's not going to be help any of us hair sufferers.

Now, following are the reasons I am still sticking to the Keratene regimen.

- First and foremost, it's definitely helping my hair. Period. There is no doubt about the visible improvement seen by me and confirmed by my friends feedback related to my hair. Now, the question is about the DHT levels which I do not have. So at least for now, I am going to give Keratene the benefit of doubt regarding their argument related to the DHT blood test method.

- Second, after Julio and Ryan published the results on this forums, Keratene could have chosen to take the easy route by not responding to any of these comments similar to big companies like Merck, etc. But at least they have shown that they are passionate about these things and genuinely concerned about their brand integrity.

- Third, regardless of the amount of the respect i have for ryan and julio I would rather rely on the support and endorsement that this company has from world renowned doctors/HT surgeons/HT clinics such as Feriduni, Prohairclinic etc etc. With all due to respect to everyone here, I would rather rely on these doctors endorsement than individual posts and comments. These docs would have definitely smelled a rat during the Keratene presentations and their own evaluations.

- Fourth, based on my research, this is not some lousy start-up company. It has a long history in hair products (link below) and had recently sold one of it's companies to L'Oreal. I don't think a giant like L'Oreal would be dumb enough to get involved with a scam company.

http://www.hairclinics.com/keratene-brand-history.html

Lastly, though I understand all the concerns here regarding the DHT levels, I am seriously concerned by the rhetoric and the impact it may have on this product and it's availability. I have recently come out of the depression that I was under since last year with my hair diffusing at an alarming rate and reactions to minox etc. I cannot keep quiet when this product is clearly helping me and I know that it may help others as well.

Don't you find it prudent to let them come here and defend themselves first? I realize you are frustrated, but you have made this very personal. Their tone was a bit unprofessional but you were here in the forums bashing them first.

I am very interested in getting to the bottom of this as I too have spent a good deal of money on this product but all of your vitriol is muddying the waters.

Keep your cool and I am sure this will be resolved. There are other parties who are implicated in this if the results have been falsified. So far we have had no one without any vested interest (or qualified sources) chime in on the scientific legitimacy to their claim of testing methods.

[ryan555]

I agree with swoosh. To start with, kudos to ryan and julio for their time and effort in getting blood tests done and publishing their results. But as I mentioned earlier there are and will always be 2 sides to a story and we definitely need to tone down the rhetoric,it's not going to be help any of us hair sufferers.

Now, following are the reasons I am still sticking to the Keratene regimen.

- First and foremost, it's definitely helping my hair. Period. There is no doubt about the visible improvement seen by me and confirmed by my friends feedback related to my hair. Now, the question is about the DHT levels which I do not have. So at least for now, I am going to give Keratene the benefit of doubt regarding their argument related to the DHT blood test method.

- Second, after Julio and Ryan published the results on this forums, Keratene could have chosen to take the easy route by not responding to any of these comments similar to big companies like Merck, etc. But at least they have shown that they are passionate about these things and genuinely concerned about their brand integrity.

- Third, regardless of the amount of the respect i have for ryan and julio I would rather rely on the support and endorsement that this company has from world renowned doctors/HT surgeons/HT clinics such as Feriduni, Prohairclinic etc etc. With all due to respect to everyone here, I would rather rely on these doctors endorsement than individual posts and comments. These docs would have definitely smelled a rat during the Keratene presentations and their own evaluations.

- Fourth, based on my research, this is not some lousy start-up company. It has a long history in hair products (link below) and had recently sold one of it's companies to L'Oreal. I don't think a giant like L'Oreal would be dumb enough to get involved with a scam company.

http://www.hairclinics.com/keratene-brand-history.html

Lastly, though I understand all the concerns here regarding the DHT levels, I am seriously concerned by the rhetoric and the impact it may have on this product and it's availability. I have recently come out of the depression that I was under since last year with my hair diffusing at an alarming rate and reactions to minox etc. I cannot keep quiet when this product is clearly helping me and I know that it may help others as well.

Thanks for the reply, ajays.

First off, it says under their brand history that they were acquired in 2010 by "Hairclinics." Is this the same as "Prohairclinic?" If so, I am even more suspicious of this product. The only reason I had any faith in their claims was because of the "independent study" performed by PHC. If they are one in the same, this seems like more trickery to me.

Bro, it is definitely not my intention to limit your access to a product that is helping you - quite the opposite. But none of the points you make really add legitimacy in my mind.

- we all know anecdotes are poor markers for measuring hair loss products. I'm glad it has improved your hair, but they are promising lower DHT, not just better hair. What we do know for certain is that every sponsored patient who took part in their trials is reported to have SIGNIFICANT drops I DHT, while every single established forum poster who has been tested saw no change. Julio and I are not the only ones, by the way. There are at least two others on other forums, which I will try to dig up and provide a link. That's 0 for 4.

- the way they responded to me damages their credibility, in my opinion. Merck doesn't respond to stuff like this because, being a company with effective products, they have billions of dollars and lots of attorneys. They also have FDA trials on their side and they know their product really works. Keratene could have had an actual scientist come online to give their point of view, but instead some twit practically taunted me in his response. This is not the type of unmeasured reaction one would expect from a company who just figured out how to achieve all the benefits of finasteride without sides (does that part even logically make any sense?). Further, his response was really nothing more than a calculated criticism of well-established testing methodologies and an insistence that we follows some near impossible protocol for them to accept our results as legitimate. And still, there's that ridiculous 14 day return policy, which flies in the face of a company with a truly effective product.

- the fact that a HT doctor carries their products does not mean much. HT docs cycle through products pretty rapidly and many of them sell stuff they will admit is not proven. I can even name a few who sell treatment like laser therapy and will tell you they believe it doesn't work! Dr Feriduni is a very good doctor as far as I know, but I am not aware that he has performed a single blood test on a patient. If he has, he should certainly publish his results.

- L'oreal is a cosmetics brand and they probably make dozens of acquisitions per year. There is a HUGE difference in making a cosmetic product and making a revolutionary medical treatment with the types of results they promise.

I want to add a few more questions in the event that they actually respond. And be wary of answers like "we won't respond to unsubstantiated claims" or dismissal of me as some "anonymous Internet poster." They need to answer every single question posed against them, clearly and factually.

- are you owned by or in any way financially affiliated with Prohairclinic? If so, why didn't you disclose this when claiming an "independent study" had been performed?

- in your insert you claim that your product does not work for NW5+ patients. Why is this? A drop in DHT will benefit any MPB sufferer.

- you claim that a number of products will render KAR "ineffective." What is the science behind that?