If the product doesn't work, how are they suppose to provide data?
They admitted the completed an efficacy study and put it in bold in their official statement.
If the product doesn't work, how are they suppose to provide data?
Completion of the study is one thing. The study showing actual afficacy is another, totally different thing...They admitted the completed an efficacy study and put it in bold in their official statement.
Completion of the study is one thing. The study showing actual afficacy is another, totally different thing...
congrats bro !! you take fina to maintain it ?
in 2016When is preordering possible? I will try for 1 month y not.
I'm not saying anything about the results of the study. What I'm saying is don't put that sh*t in your statement, especially in bold, and not show us/expect us to want it.
they never said the word cure.So, FIDIA changed the word baldness cure with hairloss treatement on their Italian statement.
I'M f*****g FAMOUSHe said he grew 1,5 norwood , he was 5a and he become 4. But at that time he was using the lotion for more than 2 years and not 6 months, and he is 53 years old.
And he never claimed he will get nw0, he said he was loosing hair for more than 30 years. So no chance to recover all his hair.
Stop lying and give miss leading information.
You can see the screenshot from november 2016 Even before your hairloss started , @acbrantlin .
View attachment 100720
I'M f*****g FAMOUS
they never said the word cure.
here's the screen shot of the official announcement taken by @17AndBalding the 25 september 2018 (page 1293) and he used google chrome translator.
cure is a huge word means a 70 y/o men with nw7 can recover his hair when he was 18y/o.
View attachment 100833
here's a definition of hairloss in wikipedia if you don't know :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_loss
View attachment 100834
PLEASE STOP SPREADING FALSE INFO, PLEAASEEEEEEEEEEE
The reason I have to repeat myself every page is because only 0.01% of people read each page. Let me say it again, s-equol was never a 'core' ingredient. PGE1 was the sole discovery drug. Brotzu said himself that equol was an after-thought addition. Let me explain for the 50th time what s-equol is:
s-equol is a soy isoflavone (which is a common ingredient in decades-old hairloss products). Their main function is to attract to estrogen receptors, whose expression have been studied to play a role in telogen to anagen induction. Also, I didn't look too hard, but here's a quote from the abstract of a 2002 study with no mention of equol: "soybean isoflavones are known to inhibit 5 alpha-reductase" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12416261
Remember, because I understand I've said this over 20 times: PGE1 was the 'discovery' drug, which he changed to the precursor DGLA. S-Equol+L-carnitine were after-thoughts that he added because he read decade old research on what helps hair, and he just randomly added them in. He has said this himself.
Even in the patent, the list of ingredients in the process to make this lotion: "a plant estrogen selected from equol, genistein, daidzein, glycitein". S-Equol isn't and never was special. It was picked out of a hat of phytoestrogens.
You know he said in the Italian statement? Might want to make sure you read before telling other people what to do.
Hey all. I´m relatively new to the forums, although have been lurking since 3 years ago.
I´d like to comment on how there is so much disrespect for the sceptics that have posted their well supported opinions in this thread. Sure, there are mindless bashers like that Royaume guy, but there are others like @acbrantlin who have strongly supported their scepticism with solid arguments, yet some forum members treat them like sh*t just because they go against their wishful expectations regarding Trinov.
I remind everyone that scepticism is very important, not only in science, but in several other aspects of our daily lives. It basically puts the bar higher for the amount (and quality) of evidence needed to support any kind of claim and to reduce the probability of scams or false positives.
If it weren´t for scepticism, that bar would be so low that we would se an even a greater proportion of people using pseudo-treatments such as homeopathy.
Nevertheless, I have to thank all the people here who are willing to try this lotion to be part of the first non-controled human experiment to test its efficacy. Most of them are doing it blindly, without knowing if it really works or not, and are willing to spend their money to provide relevant information for the rest of us who are going to wait even further. So yeah, early testers also deserve respect.
Hey all. I´m relatively new to the forums, although have been lurking since 3 years ago.
I´d like to comment on how there is so much disrespect for the sceptics that have posted their well supported opinions in this thread. Sure, there are mindless bashers like that Royaume guy, but there are others like @acbrantlin who have strongly supported their scepticism with solid arguments, yet some forum members treat them like sh*t just because they go against their wishful expectations regarding Trinov.
I remind everyone that scepticism is very important, not only in science, but in several other aspects of our daily lives. It basically puts the bar higher for the amount (and quality) of evidence needed to support any kind of claim and to reduce the probability of scams or false positives.
If it weren´t for scepticism, that bar would be so low that we would se an even a greater proportion of people using pseudo-treatments such as homeopathy.
Nevertheless, I have to thank all the people here who are willing to try this lotion to be part of the first non-controled human experiment to test its efficacy. Most of them are doing it blindly, without knowing if it really works or not, and are willing to spend their money to provide relevant information for the rest of us who are going to wait even further. So yeah, early testers also deserve respect.