follicept - what's this?

[sdsurfin]

http://www.haargroeispecialist.nl/re...ilot-study.pdf

that's the micro needling study with korean women. Using IGF improved the hair shafts. So not sure what you're harping on about. If micro needling causes improvement, follicepts method might work even better. And this study was on women, that might also have an impact. Yeah, this might not work, but who knows, not you swooping. Some bodybuilder injecting that stuff with a syringe into his scalp veins is not the same thing. And tbh, for ever account of no effect i found another from some dude saying it improved his hair. I doubt this is some great panacea or cure for mpb, but the best we can do is support these guys and see if it has any benefit. My hunch is that it might be better than rogaine, which might be enough to hold some of us over for a while. especially if its inexpensive.

[sdsurfin]

swooping why don't you link all these studies you speak of where IGF has been used to try to improve hair? All I can find ar anecdotal reports from bodybuilders, and who knows how they inject IGF or at what dose- bloodstream IGF has no correlation to improved hair, nor does follicept claim it does. You keep saying people have injected it into the follicle, but I can't find one example of this anywhere. The only one is the study with the korean women, which was actually successful to some degree.....

[Swooping]

Better than Rogaine? you don't even know 1 pathway on which Rogaine acts and goes saying " I think this will be better than rogaine". I don't care what you "think". Take Histogen for example, these guys are culturing human cells which are expressing several growth factors and proteins. Yet they can't outperform Rogaine. Replicel even in their 1st phase couldn't show better results than Rogaine. These DSC cells of Replicel also express several growth factors and I bet IGF-1 (don't know for sure) is one of them, alongside shitload others. And you think that IGF-1 is going to outperform Rogaine? You are twisted in your mind, or just dumb. You know literally nothing on the implications of AGA, yet talk like you know everything without providing any proof. That's a big difference.

FYI, several people at a other private forum have tried the exact formulation as in the study I just posted above. Have a search furthermore for "IGF-1 hair forum" on google. Oh btw you can buy the formulation here from that study; http://www.imediway.com/#!treatments/cee5. Buy it and show us your magnificent hair growth with documentation

Some bodybuilder injecting that stuff with a syringe into his scalp veins is not the same thing.

Injections are still one of the best delivery method of getting high kilodalton molecules in the dermis, Einstein.

If micro needling causes improvement, follicepts method might work even better.

Rofl, another shitty statement. How has micro needling even to do with applying IGF-1? You are really full of anecdotal shit.

[Gerhard]

Jesus f'ing Christ. I and the community as a whole appreciate both of your insights and comments on this product. However, until it is out on the market or more positive clinical tests reported (which apparently could be in the fall of 2015) we might as well just shut the **** up and wait for more information. They've made it clear that they're genuinely sympathetic to the plight of hair loss. Whether their drug works or not remains to be seen. For now, we may as well stop acting like high school girls and quit bickering.

[nave13579]

Jesus f'ing Christ. I and the community as a whole appreciate both of your insights and comments on this product. However, until it is out on the market or more positive clinical tests reported (which apparently could be in the fall of 2015) we might as well just shut the **** up and wait for more information. They've made it clear that they're genuinely sympathetic to the plight of hair loss. Whether their drug works or not remains to be seen. For now, we may as well stop acting like high school girls and quit bickering.

Preech

[Swooping]

Jesus f'ing Christ. I and the community as a whole appreciate both of your insights and comments on this product. However, until it is out on the market or more positive clinical tests reported (which apparently could be in the fall of 2015) we might as well just shut the **** up and wait for more information. They've made it clear that they're genuinely sympathetic to the plight of hair loss. Whether their drug works or not remains to be seen. For now, we may as well stop acting like high school girls and quit bickering.

Yeah well that is my point results or GTFO. Secondly they can and are able to easy manipulate results. I smell fish, that's all. Just don't trap into it. Btw just to close it out with some cool studies, to also show the side from a different standpoint!

1. http://www.worldhairresearch.com/?p=64

RESULTS: Results were obtained from logistic regression models, adjusting simultaneously for all the measured hormones and age. Men with higher levels of testosterone were more likely to have vertex baldness (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.9 to 7.8] per 194 ng/dL increment of testosterone). In addition, for each 59 ng/mL increase in IGF-1, the odds of having vertex baldness doubled (95% CI [1.0 to 4.6]). Those who were found to have higher circulating levels of SHBG were less likely to have dense hair on their chest (OR = 0.4, 95% CI [0.1 to 0.9] per 24 nmol/L increment in SHBG]).

2. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2v79r893

In summary, regulation of human hair growth by androgen is probably mediated by IGF-1 in the dermal papilla. In male scalp, high levels of IGF-1 may increase the androgen receptor activity and dihydrotestosterone levels and these result in an increased propensity for baldness.

3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10827403

CONCLUSION: Older men with vertex balding have lower circulating levels of IGFBP-3 and higher levels of IGF-1 when controlling for IGFBP-3 level

[sdsurfin]

You're the one who brought up micro needling, and said that people had used it to deliver Igf. I just showed
You a clinical trial where they did that and it actually worked.

Injecting is a great way to put something in your blood, but not the same as what follicept is doing. The follicept rep has tried to explain to you that they are aware of past trials and that their delivery system is different.

There are simply too many variables to predict much of anything, my only point is that you are speculating using anecdotal evidence. Let it play out and refrain from treating the professionals that are on here to help like they are garbage. That's all we ask.

[nave13579]

Yeah well that is my point results or GTFO. Secondly they can and are able to easy manipulate results. I smell fish, that's all. Just don't trap into it. Btw just to close it out with some cool studies, to also show the side from a different standpoint!

1. http://www.worldhairresearch.com/?p=64



2. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2v79r893



3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10827403

Excuse my lack of understanding, but if having higher levels of IGF-1 correlate to balding, why are we trying to put more IGF-1 into the scalp and hair follicles?

[sdsurfin]

Also circulating blood levels of IGF do not correlate to what is happening in the follicle. The scientists at follicept have addressed this in their communication. Higher IGF in balding men's blood does not equal no effect if IGF at the follicle. While I too remain skeptical of efficacy, there is no reason as of yet to "smell fish". You were insulting and dismissive for no reason whatsoever. Anyway, I'm done trying to show you why your logic is mostly unfounded.

[nave13579]

Excuse my lack of understanding, but if having higher levels of IGF-1 correlate to balding, why are we trying to put more IGF-1 into the scalp and hair follicles?

Any answer to this?