I would not compare Arishi's arguments to Swoopings. Swoopings positions are well thought out and his concerns are more logical and scientific.
For example, Swooping says that Histogen has IGF-1 and Histogen isn't growing a lot of hair. Are you saying that this argument by Swooping isn't sound? I think it's sound. Histogen is not growing a ton of hair and they are injecting IGF-1, along with a lot of other growth factors and proteins.
Then Arishi will come along and say, Follicept is an intentional scam and the company is a big fraud because they won't have the bald truth posters be the test subjects. And the ONLY possible reason for the company not to let the bald truth posters be the test subjects is so that the company can pull a scam. There is no other possible reason. These kinds of statements are ludicrous. Arishi is not giving the company the chance to make the right decision or the wrong decision. First you prove efficacy or otherwise then you see what the company does. It's too early to call the company a scam.
So can swooping consider this post as a compliment ? Just trying to figure out your post. Thanks jarjar!
04-24-2015 11:35 PM
stayhopeful
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless
I would not compare Arishi's arguments to Swoopings. Swoopings positions are well thought out and his concerns are more logical and scientific.
For example, Swooping says that Histogen has IGF-1 and Histogen isn't growing a lot of hair. Are you saying that this argument by Swooping isn't sound? I think it's sound. Histogen is not growing a ton of hair and they are injecting IGF-1, along with a lot of other growth factors and proteins.
Then Arishi will come along and say, Follicept is an intentional scam and the company is a big fraud because they won't have the bald truth posters be the test subjects. And the ONLY possible reason for the company not to let the bald truth posters be the test subjects is so that the company can pull a scam. There is no other possible reason. These kinds of statements are ludicrous. Arishi is not giving the company the chance to make the right decision or the wrong decision. First you prove efficacy or otherwise then you see what the company does. It's too early to call the company a scam.
The fact that you and Swooping even attempt to argue that Follicept and Histogen are equatable, simply based on the fact that they share ONE similar ingredient is quite alarming, particularly considering the intelligence Swooping portrays himself to have. You cannot derive any logical conclusion whatsoever based on the fact that two products share a similar ingredient. Just because pizza is not healthy for me, does that mean tomatoes are not healthy either? truly unbelievable
04-25-2015 12:25 AM
nameless
Quote:
Originally Posted by stayhopeful
The fact that you and Swooping even attempt to argue that Follicept and Histogen are equatable, simply based on the fact that they share ONE similar ingredient is quite alarming, particularly considering the intelligence Swooping portrays himself to have. You cannot derive any logical conclusion whatsoever based on the fact that two products share a similar ingredient. Just because pizza is not healthy for me, does that mean tomatoes are not healthy either? truly unbelievable
Stayhopeful, It's not like Follicept shares one ingredient with Histogen and then Follicept also has other ingredients. That one ingredient that Follicept share with Histogen is the ONLY ingredient that Follicept has.
04-25-2015 01:35 AM
snowie
is there a date on the release of follicept, or will we soon get one ? :) ( sorry for my bad english )
04-25-2015 02:07 AM
TravisB
Why does this thread have 180 pages?
Is there any proof that it might work on humans, other than the rat pictures?
This is a serious question, I don't want to read through 180 pages :P
If there is something significant, please direct me to the page, thanks.
04-25-2015 03:43 AM
Keki
Guys i think we should focus on the rat picture for once, if we compare the 10ppm and the minox one they are similar in term of cosmetic results, let's pretend it work exactly the same in human, we have the same minox regrowth, slightly better or worse.
We know two fact, when minox works WELL, give us 2-3 years of hairs back, which is basically a 1.5 nw back, if it doesn't work well people continue to use it being afraid of a minox shedding, so it's a deal with the devil but without a 100% success rate. So even if slightly worse people should use follicept, at least they will cure themself only few days in a year.
At the same time we know we can use propecia, and that for sure will fight the hairloss cutting the dht, the real question now is why in their theory they think cutting the dht is not necessary anymore? They think the only reason why dht kills the follicle is the igf-1 decrease or what? I wonder if a combo propecia+follicept is more effective, pretending a working follicept next month
04-25-2015 04:27 AM
noquierosercalvo
If they said that its not already tested on humans yet, how is possible there are pics of hair grown advance result of their web site ?
