There's always room for speculation mate, you could think "they went bald at an old age so their male pattern baldness must not be that aggressive" or "they were old so the cell/hair growth is also stunted by old age". No need for futher speculation, just wait and see how this goes. Wounding will surely be a big part in regrowing hair.
I 100% agree with you on this. It's always the same expression: wishful thinking. The option "this will work sh*t for guys in early 20s because of their super-aggressive balding" seems exactly reasonable, or even more than saying "this will work better on youngers because of the better healing/regenerating/responding capabilities of their cells". Come the f*** on, most of the early AGAs have a f*****g rapid evolution. Generally speaking, they are indeed quite aggressive and not always even a powerful drug like finasteride is able to maintain hairs long term. Looking at official studies, finasteride totally outshines s-equol in regards of decreasing DHT levels in the official literature, and as far as we know, keeping DHT at bay is still the key to get maintenance long term. This was reflected in the substantial difference on anagen-inducing properties between both of the two in the last confrontation I proposed.
Were we not told at Sitri that hair diameter was unchanged? Is this just a foreign antique that I picked up somewhere along the way catching dust in the back of my mind or what?
Mate, hair diameter doesn't change, it's a fact, was showed, calculated, demonstrated. Stop believing the multitude of those who say the contrary just because they only read the small % improvement in the study without looking a row below, because they probably have 0 clue about statistics and p-value. The diameter improvement registered IN THE MEAN VALUE was judged "not significant" for a reason. And the reason is that the patients' response in this aspect was so similar that the small number of patients who registered an improvement so marked to raise the mean was so small and unsignificant that it was considered to be caused by randomness, i.e. nobody can never guarantee that the improvement is even replicable or achievable. Otherwise why would they show up at Italy's most important hair congress to promote their research saying they experienced no change in diameter if that wasn't true...?
Look at the official trial paper for Finasteride... the photo results were 24 months and worse than the Brotzu ones.
In which parallel universe THESE results: (official 1998 Merck trials)
Should be WORSE than THESE:
???
Here are the two main things that stood out. Quotes are pulled directly from the study:
(...)
2)"No significant differences were observed in men regarding the total number of hair at any control visits in comparison to baseline, yet men experienced a constant improvement. At the end of treatment (6 months) 63.3% of them had experienced an increase in total hair number and the percent change of total hair count after 6 months was +1.6% compared to baseline."
What does this even mean, they are literally contradicting themselves within the same paragraph... This is just scratching the surface, anyhow looking at the tables etc it is very underwhelming so please do not get your hopes up guys.
That paragraph was beyond laughable. I already read it but didn't post here or mentioned elsewhere because I didn't want to destroy people' hopes, but you just reported it.
It also shows that not everyone reported improvements, in practical terms only 19 out of 30 did experience those improvements.
If i am not mistaken, both Propecia and Minoxidil showed pretty significant results in terms of change in hair count at the 6 month mark, Brotzu from what i have gathered from this poorly carried out study and paper shows next to nothing.
Results vary too much between studies, but generally Minoxidil provides a lot more regrowth at 6 months than this lotion and finasteride. And, speaking about minoxidil+finasteride, these results of a topical containing a mix of the two could be really described as Brotzu did in the patent for his lotion ("
On day 90: in group 1 all the patients report total disappearance of hair reduction areas that have been replaced by robust and shiny hair."):
And these results are at 6 months (the same time frame Trinov covered).
If only there were these pics in the study or at sitri, I can't imagine the hype there would have been here. Instead we're basically fighting against each other and ourselves either to try to get something positive from this shitty unconclusive study. 6 months are f*****g nothing to say anything. Good luck in buying a black box and test it at 150€ per month. f*** fidia