custom growth factors

[scrumb]

I won't stand AT ALL for the blatant disregard to men. I sympathize for anyone going though hair loss, but there is NO reason to put more emphasis on men when the numbers clearly prove that the priority should be made for them... at least for this, I'm fvcking tired of being socially crippled and mocked for it, nobody would dare to do that to a woman.

What blatant disregard to men? Most trials are being conducted almost exclusively ON MEN. The hell are you talking about?

If you can't acknowledge that there's a clear societal acceptance difference between bald women and bald men, I don't know what more to say. It is ABSOLUTELY easier to be a bald man in our society than it is a bald woman. They ARE looked upon as "weird" by a lot of people. People WILL stare when they see bald women. The same DOES NOT go for men. We're just "another bald guy" to people. I'd venture to say that a lot of the mocking and humiliation that people on here think is occurring is largely self-induced, and the general public is not thinking anything close to what you've built up in your own minds. In the past 4 years (since I've become extremely sensitive to public reaction for my GF) I don't recall ever seeing anyone staring at a bald guy's head out in public. And the the 13 years prior, no one's been staring at my buzzed head either. Why? Because it's "accepted" in our society. I'm not saying MORE money should be spent on womens' hair loss. But the fact that you seem to irrationally have an issue that ANY is being spent, or that they were even in a trial at all, is what pisses me off.

[StayThick]

Scrumb I agree with a lot of your points. Women who are "bald" are definitely looked upon as weird in society... But that's simply because it just not common, regardless of the figures you throw out there.

Women who are bald are viewed as most likely someone going through chemo or having an underlying medical condition. It's just not the norm to see women bald or balding...so of course you can expect stares. You're argument is really based on comparing apples to oranges.

Unfortunately, a large percentage of men develop some sort of baldness by the time their are 50...so obviously men who are bald are more "accepted" and I use that term loosely...and it's simply because its a genetic curse that affects so many men worldwide. The numbers don't lie. Bald men everywhere.

I sympathize with your situation and GF. Having hairloss is devastating point blank. I don't care if a man or woman is experiencing it. It's terrible on both sides.

[hellouser]

What blatant disregard to men? Most trials are being conducted almost exclusively ON MEN. The hell are you talking about?

If you can't acknowledge that there's a clear societal acceptance difference between bald women and bald men, I don't know what more to say. It is ABSOLUTELY easier to be a bald man in our society than it is a bald woman. They ARE looked upon as "weird" by a lot of people. People WILL stare when they see bald women. The same DOES NOT go for men. We're just "another bald guy" to people. I'd venture to say that a lot of the mocking and humiliation that people on here think is occurring is largely self-induced, and the general public is not thinking anything close to what you've built up in your own minds. In the past 4 years (since I've become extremely sensitive to public reaction for my GF) I don't recall ever seeing anyone staring at a bald guy's head out in public. And the the 13 years prior, no one's been staring at my buzzed head either. Why? Because it's "accepted" in our society. I'm not saying MORE money should be spent on womens' hair loss. But the fact that you seem to irrationally have an issue that ANY is being spent, or that they were even in a trial at all, is what pisses me off.

You really believe its socially 'accepted' to bald? Have you been living under a rock all your life? Don't tell me the mockery is self induced, I get shit from my female coworker about my hair often... and too bad I can't say anything in response because 1) I'm a guy and any complaint I make will go overlooked 2) I'll immediately be seen as a weak BITCH. Something women despise equally as much as balding.

So I have to basically take the flack.

AND THANK GOD for most trials being conducted on men! Its *largely* our problem anyway. Don't think for a second that I'm against women deserving of a treatment, but they are NOT a priority in this ordeal. And hair loss is just one health issue men have and the way I see, its the ONLY one where men have the leg up on this. Marty Nemko wrote an interesting piece on the gender pendulum a while back. He found in PubMed over 3,000 medical journals in the last 60 years and for every 43 studies there were on women.... ONLY ONE WAS ON MEN. 43 to 1 studies in womens favour. FOURTY THREE. That is downright disgusting. You don't think its about time men got *some* attention?

And I feel for women having to go through this shitty disease, I'm one of the victims... I know EXACTLY how it feels... only I get called out for publicly right to my face and silently when I notice peoples eyes go up my forehead. So what, men aren't capable of feeling shitty about it? Don't downplay AGA.

[StayThick]

I feel for women having to go through this shitty disease, I'm one of the victims... I know EXACTLY how it feels... only I get called out for publicly right to my face and silently when I notice peoples eyes go up my forehead. So what, men aren't capable of feeling shitty about it? Don't downplay AGA.

This is spot on. I can relate...

[greatjob!]

hellouser you contribute a lot to this community, but right now you sound like a chauvinist prick who enjoys playing the victim

[hellouser]

hellouser you contribute a lot to this community, but right now you sound like a chauvinist prick who enjoys playing the victim

What, we're not victims of AGA?

[greatjob!]

What, we're not victims of AGA?

I'm not talking about that kind of victim, I'm talking about the "oh women have it so easy, not like us poor men, everyone picks on us, my life is over boo hoo" kind of victim.

[hellouser]

I'm not talking about that kind of victim, I'm talking about the "oh women have it so easy, not like us poor men, everyone picks on us, my life is over boo hoo" kind of victim.

No. My complaint is with people not giving a shit about mens health. Hair loss included.

[lilpauly]

Small update the growth factors only need to be applied once every 2 weeks

[garethbale]

lilpauly

what is the exact website? I can't find it on google by searching.

[lilpauly]

hellouser you contribute a lot to this community, but right now you sound like a chauvinist prick who enjoys playing the victim

lilpauly

what is the exact website? I can't find it on google by searching.

It's not on his web page yet. I will let u know.

[scrumb]

Scrumb I agree with a lot of your points. Women who are "bald" are definitely looked upon as weird in society... But that's simply because it just not common, regardless of the figures you throw out there.

Women who are bald are viewed as most likely someone going through chemo or having an underlying medical condition. It's just not the norm to see women bald or balding...so of course you can expect stares. You're argument is really based on comparing apples to oranges.

First, unlike others, thanks for being rational in your discussion. However, just wanted to say that I'm actually comparing apples to apples. Take a look at the statistics:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/hair-loss-statistics/

The hair loss numbers for women are only slightly over a third less than men. And as age increases, women actually surpass men (diffuse thinning... which is just as devastating. Trust me.)

The real number that's the problem here is those that seek treatment. You can see for yourself that less than 1/35 (if that were only men, which it's not) of men are even seeking treatment in the first place. Why do we expect drug companies to be working overtime to help us when people aren't seeking help in the first place (obviously most on this board have/do... I mean the general hair loss populous)? Sure, there's 35 million men losing their hair... but, even with an incredible effective drug like Propecia, if less than several hundred thousand men are even bothering to get that... what's their incentive financially to spend tens of millions on a new treatment? THAT'S the problem unfortunately.

Also, not directed toward you, but just wanted to point out that perhaps the reason that there's a lot of pubmed women's hairloss studies is because they are STILL testing anything they can to find something that works. At present there is no treatment anywhere near Propecia's efficacy. We have it way better than them on that front in that it's at least an option. Finally, hair transplants are another option we have that women don't in most cases. They are more often than not diffuse thinners and don't have any viable donor zone.

[hellouser]

Sure, there's 35 million men losing their hair... but, even with an incredible effective drug like Propecia, if less than several hundred thousand men are even bothering to get that... what's their incentive financially to spend tens of millions on a new treatment? THAT'S the problem unfortunately.

The 35 million figure is an indication youre from USA. There are areas inhabited by mankind outside your borders. Also, there are *far* more than 35 million balding men in the world.

You also need to be far more aggressive and not so passive about the lack of a treatment in 2013. There's a reason why there isn't incentive to take Propecia; its because for the (significantly large) most part IT SUCKS. It rarely ever gets any guy a full norwood level back, it can halt hair loss but not always and usually only slows it down, so to most balding men theyre going to be bald anyway..... and to meddle with hormone screwing durgs that could permanently damage you is playing with fire considering the drug may potentially NOT work for you in the long run or stop working later on as well. Bill Burr (famous comedia) joked about Propecia and his baldness too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxLCvZxsqGg

HOWEVER

You give men a viable treatment; hair multiplication or a one time procedure to completely stop further loss with no side effects *will* give men the incentive to do something about it. There isnt incentive now because the current crop of treatments is bullshit. So women and men have it equally shitty in the end as theres no real treatment unless your a guy who wants to take a serious risk of many potential side effects.... thats the ONLY benefit we have but I dont see it at all as a benefit.

Even the chart you posted shows a Sugrical hair restoration worldwide revenue worth $1.87 Billion... do you have any idea how high that number would be, if propecia was replaced with a legitimate and superior alternative? Its mostly men who go for surgical too so the number would increase even more as women would then have an actual solution as well.

You know... on second though, since people give more of a shit about womens problems (because anything that happens to a guy is considered funny, hence the socially accepted mockery of balding men) maybe it would be a good idea for women to start some bitching about hair loss... cuz lord knows that all the men combined in the world won't make a lick of a difference any time soon, which is what our generation RIGHT NOW needs.

[scrumb]

The 35 million figure is an indication youre from USA. There are areas inhabited by mankind outside your borders. Also, there are *far* more than 35 million balding men in the world.

Sorry for not being clearer. That was meant only as a statistic in the percentage sense (male to female ratio). I'd venture that the ratios are similar in most developed countries.

I realize that you hate Propecia (as is clear in previous posts through the years), but your statement of "it can halt hair loss but not always and usually only slows it down, so to most balding men theyre going to be bald anyway" just doesn't make sense. It DOES halt hairloss for ~ 8 or 9 out of 10 men who take it. Yes, that's "not always", but that's an extremely high ratio for a simple once a day treatment. And yes, it just "slows it down"... but as I've stated (and this is personal experience) it's slowed the progression over 17 YEARS from complete baldness to a strong Norwood 2. That's pretty fantastic efficacy. No, it doesn't regrow (which is why, for myself even, I'm interested in this forum in the first place) for the most part... but if men choose to take it when they first start balding, their odds of keeping what they have for YEARS are extremely high.

The vitriol against Propecia, near as I can tell, really took off following the GWU study published a couple years back. A study that questioned men solicited from propeciahelp.com OBVIOUSLY the reported side-effect percentages from that group are going to be through the roof. It's like publishing a study saying that Samsung is the most unreliable electronics manufacturer in the world... as reported by the board members of samsungsucks.com

I'm not saying there isn't the chance of side-effects. There is, roughly 2-3%. And for those that suffer from them, the VAST majority will see the side-effects disappear once they discontinue use. There is surely a group that might have permanent side-effects... but, yes, it's a prescription drug. These are known quantities. The side-effect rate for Propecia is much lower than anti-depressants and people often take those without giving them a second thought (not saying that's any justification, just wondering how many on here have frightened themselves from taking the most potent drug against hairloss available today... yet take a drug, Prozac, which can cause a permanently swollen tongue.)

You know what else has the same exact side effect rate as Propecia (again, sorry for the US numbers, but it's the percentage that I'm demonstrating... likely similar in developed nations)? Having a baby:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/data.html

Let's just stop that too... it's the devil. Life is measured risk.

I do disagree with you on "thats the ONLY benefit we have but I dont see it at all as a benefit" as well. As I mentioned before, men at least have the option (given the typical MPB Norwood pattern) of hair transplants. Women, by and large, given the diffuse, and thus useless, donor area, do not. Like it or not, that is another option men have that women don't for at least temporary restoration.

But again, my real issue with your statement is the assertion that seemingly ANY research on female hairloss is a useless thing because they are "the minority". If you're basing research purely on numbers games, then I assume all diabetes research should stop in lieu of Alzheimer's funding, because the diabetes death rate is 2/3 that of Alzheimer's Or likewise for heart disease over any further cancer research?

It affects more people after all.

Sorry to everyone else for hijacking this thread. Hopefully this will be the end of things (this will be my last post on this), and the topic can go back to its original purpose.

[lilpauly]

fellas the growth factors are ready! 7 of us twill be using the factors this week!

http://anageninc.com/

its cooperation between kane and the gf lab~~~