Tweet
Repeat post, Internet issue.
-
-
We never heard from 'Hugo' again after page 77 for some reason either..Comment
-
Well I will be first to admit that I have been a little taken aback with the results posted by Julio and ryan. But I am willing to give the product the benefit of doubt (related to their argument of ELISA versus LCTMS method of testing) for the sole reason that I see definite improvement in my hair. I am not at all comfortable with stopping this regimen when it seems to be working for me.
I am sure many of you will assume that i am troll trying to promote the company (which isn't true), but honestly it's none of my concern.I am just telling you my personal experience after being on this regimen for 5 months. I just glad that I no longer have to apply minox everyday and suffer with the face/skin side effects.
All i can suggest as a friend for users like jcm800 is use up your supply of the capsules and then decide for yourself whether it's working or not. Just laying the other side of the story, rest is upto each individual.Comment
-
I hear you ajays, I wish I could say the same as you, how long have you been taking it?
I can't afford to waste time finding out if it's going to work for me, I highly doubt it will now frankly.
Has anyone contacted them in any shape or form yet?Comment
-
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!Comment
-
Reposting my comment from the other thread to this parent thread...
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.
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.
Comment
-
i bought mine way back when it first came out i still have the caps but did not use them all so i cannot say anything negative about the company only that when i asked for a discount i got it but still expensive and i am still on finast.
We all here have been dupped in one way or another and it is anoying to say the least but is ru58841 the real deal i bought that as well and also a warning in the uk about fake pharmacy online products that may do you harm.Comment
-
Looking at the pro clinic the pics show hair transplant patients if this keratene worked then why are they still doing hair transplants,also whats the difference between the keratene site and the pro clinic are they the same company.Comment
-
My answer about the post o Kératene Company is here:
Comment
-
doke, Keratene works similar to Propecia, It will prevent future hair loss but will never bring back the hair you lost. So you need a hair transplant in order to recover and retain your before image. Thats why most top HT clinics always ask you to take a DHT blocker so you dont need to come often as your donor can give you only 8000 grafts in average. Hope this explains.Comment
-
Guys I was searching the forums for Keratene reviews and I came across an interesting post in hairlossexperience.com by a member called mkwill:-
"I took part in their trials back in 2011 on this product and I got to experience various formulations they pushed down my throat. No side-effects for me personally but I heard from one of the doctors involved in the screening of the rest of the guys that some heavy duty athlete complained about tiredness or so. Anyway the guy was a sport freak or so. One extra bonus for me haaha ¬b` (unexpected though) after about half a year of popping pills I got some hair growing back on a previously a totally bald spot... on my leg! It was sweet to see that and it keeps going ok but it's not as hairy as the regions next to the spot. However the company went beyond any reasonable efforts to educate me that the product is strictly for the maintenance of the existing hair density and not for hair growth. So for the record, just to be clear, I do not say KAR is meant for hair growth. After the trial I saw the clinical presentation at a scientific meeting and the clinical tests show interesting results to say the least (and this is an understatement, just to be discreet and not advertise the product). From the papers I got for my trial the text sounds like this "Kératene alphactive Retard (I call it KAR) is not a direct enzyme inhibitor, but rather an indirect DHT depressor (lowering). The product does not interfere with 5ard (it just leaves the molecule intact) and it does not affect testosterone or other hormonal factors. It reduces DHT levels by preventing the chemical reduction of Testosterone into DHT. With Keratene alphactive retard you can "see" the direct effects by measuring your DHT levels in blood, prior to administration and after at least 7 days during administration. ".
My personal results were like this: before KAR - DHT 1734pg/ml, after 8 days it dropped to 762, then after 2 weeks it dropped to 574 and during 8 months it stayed at around 560 - 580, which is very good.
Up to this moment I feel good, I am happy with my own experience.
From my point of view the problem with testing your own dht level is finding a proper lab that has the gear to run the test correctly. Dht is no longer a hot topic and it can be quite challenging to find a good lab. Best bet would be a university hospital or possibly at the endocrinology faculties they may still do dht. Contact the customer care from keratene if you want to ask something specific or so, they answer pretty quickly and you get (in my opinion) educated answers.
But anyway, don't just jump buying the stuff like that. Be smart, they still run some trials and if you're from the Belgium region you can jump in for free. The nasty part is that they require you to get your veins needled several times (actually lots of times, my veins are still blue and patchy) and if you're not a fan of long sharp pointy needles.... you're screwed. Go consult a professional doctor or so. Where are you from? Did you visit a doctor? If you're from Europe I can recommend you a few.
Anyway, based on my own experience, the product does not help much when you're in telogen effluvium, that crazy hair shedding when you're losing hairs in rapid tempo so if you're in "that" period of the year, just be patient, take care of yourself, lower the stress and take some vitamins. If you're already in a visible / advanced state of alopecia, save some cash and do either micropigmentation or a transplant (if you can afford it or depending on what you feel comfortable with). KAR will probably help you keep the normal hairs you have now but the biggest change will be made by ht."Comment
-
One month taking x2 daily - nothing to report, just making a note.Comment
-
I think everyone taking this product should be aware of this (from Keratene tech support):
soy (products) may interfere not only with the effects provided by the Kératene capsules, but on a deeper level too. This is one of the reason why the product is actually intentionally not sold anywhere in Asia.a comparative uncontrolled trial conducted 3 years ago in Asia, on Kératene. The subjects ate whatever their heart desired, with odd consequences. Their DHT levels went up or remained unchanged when they were suppose to go down. On a closer observation, the study reveled that all, with no exception, ate soy and sterol-rich foods, which are typical for Asia.Comment
Comment