-
I also want to make the point: 2% sounds like a low figure. It is. However, let's say it's even 3% inaccurate - feasible considering the trials to date have been limited in number and we don't know much about the methodology or potential for bias.
So, if the number of men suffering side effects was even 5% rather than 2%, we would see 2.5x the anticipated number of men reporting adverse health implications. Accuse me of jumping to conclusions but I think this is exactly what is happening.
Similar Threads
-
By seraphix in forum Hair Loss Treatments
Replies: 12
Last Post: 10-24-2015, 01:12 AM
-
By jon parkes in forum Hair Loss Treatments
Replies: 2
Last Post: 10-24-2015, 01:09 AM
-
By Username1234 in forum Introduce Yourself & Share Your Story
Replies: 38
Last Post: 02-03-2013, 01:48 PM
-
By notsure in forum Men's Hair Loss: Start Your Own Topic
Replies: 13
Last Post: 03-29-2010, 12:52 PM
-
By jman2 in forum Hair Loss Treatments
Replies: 1
Last Post: 07-24-2009, 09:18 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules
|
» IAHRS
» The Bald Truth
» americanhairloss.org
|
Bookmarks