Why would they fake results on a plant? And how could they? Looks like the guy just got a little thicker hair by using rosemary oil.
There are any number of reasons. Maybe someone involved sells essential oils?
The journal that published this study is Skinmed. They have an impact factor of .216 which is near the bottom of all dermatology journals in the world.
https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=24959&tip=sid&clean=0
Looks like the guy got a little thicker hair, and maybe he did. That proves nothing. Let's say the pictures and data are legitimate. The amount of hair regrown was insignificant. Without a placebo group we don't know if they regrew hair because of the compound or because it was just that time of year. Not only was there no placebo group, but the researchers knew which patients got minoxidil and which ones got rosemary oil. It's striking to me that the minoxidil group only showed an increase of 1.7%. How is this number at all believable? In Allergan's 6 month bimatoprost study minoxidil 2% showed a TAHC increase of 9%, and they had every reason to deflate the minoxidil figures to make their own drug look better in comparison. Why did minoxidil perform so much lower in this study than in others? If that poor minoxidil result couldn't be replicated by others then why would you believe that the rosemary result can replicated? Also, this study was conducted in Iran. No offense to any Iranians, but I don't trust anything that comes out of Iran.
People need to regain a healthy dose of skepticism. Especially with the degrading quality of information these days, and increased willingness among even "respected" people to manipulate and outright fabricate data. Here as an article with some of what to look for when researching studies:
https://archive.attn.com/stories/18389/how-tell-good-scientific-study-bad-one
"
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
"Fake news and alternative facts have become commonplace in these so-called “post-factual times.” What about medical research - are scientific facts fake as well? Many recent disclosures have fueled the claim that scientific facts are suspect and that science is in crisis. Scientists appear to engage in
facting interests instead of
revealing interesting facts. This can be observed in terms of what has been called
polarised research, where
some researchers continuously publish positive results while others publish negative results on the same issue – even when based on the same data."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
