- Reaction score
- 122
nothing ever improves! 1! now get your fox news boomer
an answer to the question, can you get sides from topical finasteride if it does not go systemic?
- Thread starter scientist_0005
- Start date
"Fox News boomer"? Nope.
I'm not particularly old. I just started balding very young. And when I first started educating myself about baldness, I read a lot of old forum threads & information dating back earlier.
Very little has improved since the 1990s, practically speaking. We have fine-tuned our knowledge about the existing old drugs. We have gotten the word out about terrible transplant clinics. We have tested the limits & figured out what is possible with very high quality work. That's about it.
I'm impressed by the prolactin work lately. IMO that's really promising.
I still think Follica had a good idea, but it's been frustrating watching it never really pan out. After 15 years they have mainly provided solid data on things that were suspected from anecdotal & forum experimentation. They have spent a lot of time & money learning how to invent light bulbs that didn't work.
Last edited:
I
I know their different, hence i separated the 2 when explaining. Even low doses of topicals may not be enough to cause any significant impact on peoples hairloss.
So it supposedly had therapeutic effects for that one person, wow should we be impressed? There's also people who had amazing results from just Minoxidil, they call them hyper responders. That's what's I'm saying, no bias, I've seen plenty of people using low dose topical dutasteride, finasteride, RU, etc and have negligible results hence my statement. No bias.
Last edited:
I would not dismiss this so easily. According to the 2016 Caserini Study, 100 Microliter of 0,25% Finasteride (which equals 1ml of 0,025%) decreased scalp dht by 47%, which was on the same level as oral finasteride in the same time period.
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26636418/
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26636418/
Exactly. If topical finasteride produced good results for hair loss over the past 10+ years of people doing it surely we would have heard of it being some ground breaking news, but of course we haven't, for a reason.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 122
and of course some random guys on a hair loss forum beat the scientific method. but it is not like anyone cares abiut that in the research section. carry on putting semen on your temples then
- Reaction score
- 122
lol just look on tressless many people with good results from topical finasteride, most report reduced sides. but you completely ignore that which is utterly hilarious
- Reaction score
- 122
that one person? lol you dont even recall that the guy did an entire study on it with 40 somewhat people? ridiculous that you even chose to debate this with zero knowledge
- Reaction score
- 481
3 years ago, I tried microdosed topical finasteride (0.001% a day) and got sides after 2 months (libido loss, acne, soft erections and brain fog)
DHT and T serum levels showed a clear systemic accumulation - the worst of it being that it didn't help my hairloss.
I have discussed it with several HairLossTalk.com users who experienced the very same thing
Just suit yourself. Try it and stop spamming people.
After a while, you will realize there's no such thing as sides-free treatment for Androgenetic Alopecia atm.
DHT and T serum levels showed a clear systemic accumulation - the worst of it being that it didn't help my hairloss.
I have discussed it with several HairLossTalk.com users who experienced the very same thing
Just suit yourself. Try it and stop spamming people.
After a while, you will realize there's no such thing as sides-free treatment for Androgenetic Alopecia atm.
There's no discussion possible here.
You have studies presented to you showing that serum DHT reduction is minimal ( Among others ), and you just answer to that a resounding no, because of personal not so rigorous forum experiments, with different vehicles and difference experience in a non controlled environment.
I'm not discarding personal experience or saying you guys all lies, but why are you all in the research sections if you just discard all studies on the basis of your personal experience?
Are all scientific studies just lies? Why do you even bother reading those?
I'm not saying topical finasteride is side free, i'm not even saying it's good, i'm not even saying this study is perfect and that other contradictory studies are sham.
But if we're to only rely on forum personal experiences to discard completely more scientific studies, then we have to believe everything coming out of Raypeat forum, everything coming out of indian aunties promising cures if you rub rosemary oil onto your scalp and so on.
You have studies presented to you showing that serum DHT reduction is minimal ( Among others ), and you just answer to that a resounding no, because of personal not so rigorous forum experiments, with different vehicles and difference experience in a non controlled environment.
I'm not discarding personal experience or saying you guys all lies, but why are you all in the research sections if you just discard all studies on the basis of your personal experience?
Are all scientific studies just lies? Why do you even bother reading those?
I'm not saying topical finasteride is side free, i'm not even saying it's good, i'm not even saying this study is perfect and that other contradictory studies are sham.
But if we're to only rely on forum personal experiences to discard completely more scientific studies, then we have to believe everything coming out of Raypeat forum, everything coming out of indian aunties promising cures if you rub rosemary oil onto your scalp and so on.
There's no such thing as a side free treatment at all.
Sure, but why discard it completely off the bat? It's precisely why things are tested and retested.Not all scientific studies are of decent quality, especially when talking about medicine.
Replication crisis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis most severely affects the social sciences and medicine,[
Because the reproducibility of experimental results is an essential part of the scientific method,[7] an inability to replicate the studies has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work. The replication crisis has been particularly widely discussed in the fields of medicine, where a number of efforts have been made to re-investigate classic results, to determine both the reliability of the results and, if found to be unreliable, the reasons for the failure of replication.
Why do i sometimes see you reposting studies yourself?
The existence of poor quality studies, failure of replicability, doesn't mean everything has to be discarded in regards to your own biases.
If you apply 0,025% topical finasteride, this would mean 0,025mg going systemic. We know that 0,01mg do not accumulate at all and 0,05mg reduce Dht by 50%. Therefore the Inhibition with 0,025mg should be something inbetween.
- Reaction score
- 122
lol so it was enough to give you systemic reduction side effects but not enough to reduce hair loss? how does that even work? how much was your dht reduced to baseline? do you know what a dose ranging study is? they test various doses as part of pharmacology resewrch of a drug. they found out that below 0.05mg finasteride does nor reduce dht to a significant extent. yes, the dose response curve is very steep, finasteride does accumulate and the bodies ability to sysnthesise new 5AR might be slightly overpowered. but realize that with its properties only 10-20% of topically applied finasteride reach the system. that means of your teeny teeny tiny dose of 0.001% if you lets say applied 1ml per day, thats 0.0015 mg on average. that is so fsr below what they even bothered to test as part of the pharmacology. i would also point out that i have personally talked with people that tried 0.003% and they also did blood test and found zero systemic impact. so your N=1 study is not the ultimate proof of anything at all.
also realize that i am not claiming topical finasteride is the end all be all solution for everybody and some people will probably get sides even from small 20-30% reduction of dht. but for other people double the dht they would have under oral use kighr just be enough to avoid sides, this is very possible as obviously there is a difference between nuking your dht by 70vs 25%. numerous studies have shown a therapeutic benefit and scalp dht reduction. you dont have to be bitter that it did not work for you because there are definitely reports of people for whom it did work and while no proper scientific method was applied there either it proofs it can be a solution for some if not a significant portion of people that cannot use oral finasteride
- Reaction score
- 122
lol. okay Dr thats an interpolated curve, whx did you mark 0.5 when the dosages we are talking about here are up to 1/100th smaller than that? we are talking 0.05mg of which only 20% go systemic so 0.01mg.the curve on your little chart that is supposed to proof us wrong shows a 10% systemif dht reduction which is much much better than 70%. this is also over long periods of time suggesting that even with accumulation minimal systemic dht reduction(not all ofc but thats not the point anyway) can be achieved. mozarella study suggests therapeutic benefit with 0.005% solution which based on your own source should only yield 10% systemic dht reduction most likely eliminating sides for quite a number of people that had them with a whopping 7 fold decreaae of that.
so thank you very much for digging up that graph and proving the ppint i am trying to make with actual data!
- Reaction score
- 122
it is funny, you talk about quality od scientific studies yet you post these low *** quality studies on pfs all the time so you think they are of value but when you disagree with the findings they arent? where is the consistency there? why are you so hell bent on demonizing finasteride in all its applications and degrading ideas that might work for some people with pathetic evidence ?Not all scientific studies are of decent quality, especially when talking about medicine.
Replication crisis - Wikipedia
The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis most severely affects the social sciences and medicine,[
Because the reproducibility of experimental results is an essential part of the scientific method,[7] an inability to replicate the studies has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work. The replication crisis has been particularly widely discussed in the fields of medicine, where a number of efforts have been made to re-investigate classic results, to determine both the reliability of the results and, if found to be unreliable, the reasons for the failure of replication.
- Reaction score
- 122
you are spamming btw lol.
- Reaction score
- 122
you be like quoting case reports of Dr Irwig all the time which all of super low quality have all kinds of biases most notably very high selection ans confirmation bias while at the same time attsck the highest of all forms a double blinded placebo controlled trial, thats weirdNot all scientific studies are of decent quality, especially when talking about medicine.
Replication crisis - Wikipedia
The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis most severely affects the social sciences and medicine,[
Because the reproducibility of experimental results is an essential part of the scientific method,[7] an inability to replicate the studies has potentially grave consequences for many fields of science in which significant theories are grounded on unreproducible experimental work. The replication crisis has been particularly widely discussed in the fields of medicine, where a number of efforts have been made to re-investigate classic results, to determine both the reliability of the results and, if found to be unreliable, the reasons for the failure of replication.