Hi again! I don´t really know what this woman says, but the photos are pretty clear. The lotion works, because the little girl has a full hair head.
By the way, I´ve seen more photos not just the ones her mother shows in the video. So, yep the lotion worked for her daughter and she is asking for the release date.
Ps. I know the video was posted before, but I´m going to post it anyway.
It's important to realize that alopecia areata and androgenetic alopecia are entirely different diseases:
AA
- Auto-immune disease
- Hair follicles remain in prolonged telogen but otherwise intact
- Can spontaneously recover without any intervention
Androgenetic Alopecia
- Hormonal/genetic condition
- Hair follicles undergo miniaturization
- Degenerative changes occur within the follicle unit itself, such as a diminished dermal papilla population, detachment of the arrector pili muscle, degeneration of the AP muscle, fibrosis and calcification of the surrounding tissue, adipose loss within the scalp, etc.
- Continues to progress (albeit rate of loss may greatly vary) if uninterrupted
Does the lotion help AA? The answer is "maybe."
Does the lotion help Androgenetic Alopecia? The answer is "unknown."
Conclusions should be evidence based. It's the doctor and Fidia's problem to convince people that the lotion works, not the other way around. Practically speaking, we start with the assumption that the lotion does not work, until proven otherwise - not the other way around.
Let me be even more specific; this is not to say that the lotion cannot work or that we are biased against the lotion. It is the reverse. We are open to any and all evidence presented regarding the lotion. Thus far, there is absolutely nothing compelling to suggest that it works for our need. No, people's opinions, someone's reputation, this patent, that business transaction - none of these constitute evidence toward the simple question of, "Does the lotion improve the condition of Androgenetic Alopecia to any extent?" Publication of the following: clear pictures, trichograms, hair counts, scalp biopsies and the like would be a start.
So, given the lack of evidence so far, the state of the lotion is that its efficacy has yet to be proven. Practically this means one has no actual reason (I am not talking about "feeling" - anyone can feel whatever the f*** they want) to believe that the lotion functions. It's the same principle as "innocent until proven guilty" - this doesn't imply bias one way or another. It only beckons an evidence based conclusion.
This also doesn't mean that if you doubt the lotion, you are some kind of troglodyte who must have the lotion in his/her own hands before being able to admit that it works. On the contrary, you would be correct to not buy into the lotion without proof. There are plenty of opportunities to release evidence of efficacy well before the product is released. On the other hand, Fidia is not obligated to release anything, nor are they obligated to produce any product and that too is completely understandable. But the main point stands - show me the evidence and I will concur. Until then, maybe it is better to saunter through the graveyard of posts from 2005 to let the reality of "doesn't work until proven otherwise" sink in.
And as an aside, RCH-01 has provided compelling evidence, as has Tsuji, even if it just preliminary data/proof of concept. When the effect is measurable and reproducible, we can talk about excitement for the technology.
I think the sentence that best explains what we all must remember: "So, given the lack of evidence so far, the state of the lotion is that its efficacy has yet to be proven."
