question about revivogen

[mvpsoft]

The study you referenced had to do with organs, not hair growth. You have to extrapolate from those results to get to hair growth. The extrapolation may be valid, it may not, we simply don't know. That's my point -- we can't claim more than the research shows. You are attempting to do exactly that.

As far as that "study" done by the makers of Revivogen, the results were compiled exclusively by reports of participants. The study was not a double-blind study, there was no independent verification of results, no hair counts, nothing -- it was simply a bunch of people who were given free Revivogen for a year and asked to report back their own perceptions of their results.

It's frankly embarrassing that you would cite that, Red Rose.

 

[viperfish]

Actually I would have to disagree with that mvpsoft.Propecia only reduces the amount of serum level DHT in the scalp by 38%. This is still leaving 62% DHT that are attacking the hair follicles.This is so because the predominant enzyme that converts testosterone to DHT in the scalp is type 1, 5-alpha reductase which is not affected by finasteride. On the other hand Revivogen is shown to Decrease DHT in the scalp only by binding with both 1 & 2, 5-Alpha reductase. So whoever said that their would be no point in taking both Propecia and Revivogen was giving out some seriously bad advise in my opinion.Propecia isn't a miracle drug that stop all DHT from the scalp.Only 38% which is not really that much.This was confirmed by Merck and actually 5mg of Propecia was shown to have these results but i guess 1mg would have that same results aswell since the dose from 0.2mg and 5mg showed to have a very similar effect on the scalp.I mean mabye if you are taking Dutasteride then their might not be a reason to take Revivogen since Dutasteride binds with both 1 & 2, 5-alpha reductase which would stop the formation of DHT in the scalp directly.But i would never take this drug as i think it is reallly dangerous and it't not FDA -approved yet to be used safetly for male pattern baldness.Oh and the study's and trials done on Copper Peptides only involved around 36 people i think and SOME of them had some results.I was told that the further trials were cancelled due to poor results.I mean i seriously dont think they would help fight male pattern baldness.Why is the reason our sclaps itch and are inflammed?With for those of us effected by male pattern baldness it is because when DHT attaches to the androgen receptor sites at the hair follicle, it triggers a very complicated chain of events that results in the miniaturization of the follicles with a surrounding inflammatory response. So stopping DHT from attacking/binding to the androgen receptor sites would reduce or stop the inflammation caused by DHT which cause male pattern baldness.So i would recommend adding both Revivogen and 5% spironolactone since it helps stop DHT from binding to the adrogen receptors in the scalp and reduced DHT in the scalp.I mean if you have the money it is better to be safe than sorry in my opinion.I would even switch from normal Minoxidil to Xandrox 15 (night) and Xandrox 5 (day) since it contains Anzelic Acid which inhibits the synthesis of DHT in the scalp and people are having good results using these.Also remember that some people just dont respond to treatments and not everything will work for everybody.

Yes, but cu peptides fight aganist the inflammation brought on by DHT attaching to the receptor sites. They also stop fibrosis, which is where the follicle becomes scarred, due to the inflammation caused by DHT. Once scarred little recovery can be made. If you go to http://www.folligen.com you can read Pickart's research that backs this up. Fighting the inflammation that DHT causes is just as important as fighting the DHT itself. Both methods, removal of dht and removal of inflammation, should be used to fight male pattern baldness. There is no doubt about that!

As far as revivogen goes, there is no doubt that it is better than 98% of the other bullshit available for male pattern baldness. However, disregarding "free" fatty acids, the other ingredients found within revivogen have only been tested in-vitro, which to me does not mean all that much. Like MVPsoft said, just because things work in-vitro does not mean they will work in-vivo. Saw palmetto is a perfect example of that. So if you wanna use revivogen what your really paying for is those "free" fatty acids.

I have noticed, also from talking to other users of revivogen, that irritation is also a problem when using revivogen. I for one had irritation problems with revivogen. Irritation is not something you want to deal with when fighting hairloss.

There is no doubt however, that cu peptides are a vital aspect of anyones regimen and do far more than simply making your hair appear healthy.

Redrose what do you currently use?? How do you know cu peptides have not been helping you?? I mean if your on finasteride or min etc., and using cu peptides how do you know what is working for you??

 

[Red Rose]

It's frankly embarrassing that you would cite that, Red Rose.

C'mon lets not resort to pithy putdowns.

Yes, I am prepared to extrapolate. Would you have me say that every product that hasn't gone through FDA phase III trials is completely ineffectual. There is enough evidence behind revivogen for me to make very strong claims about its merit.

Remember the makers of Tricomin are unable to make any claims that the product regrows hair.

So anyway here is a press release about the tricomin trial results

Tricomin FDA Phase II US Results

Reuters News Service KIRKLAND, Wash., April 4

ProCyte Corporation (Nasdaq-NNM: PRCY) today said that it obtained statistically significant results in an initial study of its hair growth compound, PC1358, in a group of men, ranging in age from 18 to 40 years old, with male pattern hair loss. The early-stage Phase II clinical study of the company's investigational compound, tradenamed Tricomin(R) solution, enrolled 36 men with early to mid-stage androgenetic alopecia -- or male pattern hair loss. Thirty-three of the participants were evaluable in the study, in which they were randomly assigned to either one of two dose groups or the vehicle formulation. Study participants topically applied the assigned treatment twice a day for 24 weeks.

The study's prospectively designed endpoints included determination of the effect of 1.25% and 2.5% doses of PC1358 versus vehicle on total hair count and hair weight measured in a one square centimeter treatment area located on the top of the head. An additional endpoint included a general cosmetic assessment of the treated area. Treatment with 2.5% PC1358 resulted in a statistically significant increase in the total hair count when compared to vehicle treatment over the course of the study. Appreciable increases in total hair weight were not found over the treatment phase of the study.

In the general cosmetic assessment, all participants treated with the high dose compound believed they were either growing more hair or staying the same, while almost half of the vehicle-treated participants believed they were losing more hair over the course of the study. The Phase II single center, double-blinded study also provided a further safety assessment of the compound. There were no serious drug-related adverse events reported in the study.

PC1358 is a copper peptide compound. While the specific mechanism of action of the compound is not known, in vivo and in vitro studies have shown this class of compounds to be pharmacologically active in stimulating and protecting hair follicles. Additional studies have shown that PC1358 stimulates the synthesis of major extracellular matrix components involved in hair follicle regulation.

ProCyte Corporation is a development stage healthcare company that is developing a class of proprietary copper peptide compounds for wound care, tissue repair and related applications.

SOURCE ProCyte Corporation
CONTACT: Karen L. Hedine, Vice President of ProCyte

Ok well the first thing is 36 is shall we say not a statistically significant sample size.

Secondly 24 weeks is not nearly long enough to show a difference in hair count either way because of hair growth cycles etc. The minimum time period to truly assess hair counts should be at least 12 months, agree? Would you not say that within just 24 weeks hair counts could have fluctuated dramatically with the hair cycles?

 

[Red Rose]

How do you know cu peptides have not been helping you?? I mean if your on finasteride or min etc., and using cu peptides how do you know what is working for you??

Viperfish I am sure copper peptides do work but if I had to choose between finasteride, nizoral, minoxidil and SOD and finasteride, nizoral, minoxidil and Reviogen I would go for the second option.

 

[viperfish]

How do you know cu peptides have not been helping you?? I mean if your on finasteride or min etc., and using cu peptides how do you know what is working for you??

Viperfish I am sure copper peptides do work but if I had to choose between finasteride, nizoral, minoxidil and SOD and finasteride, nizoral, minoxidil and Reviogen I would go for the second option.

Have you ever used revivogen before?? If you have not, trust me it is not a pleasurable thing to apply. :wink:

I do feel differently though, I would much rather use finasteride, min, and cu peptides. To each his own........................

To successfully fight hairloss you need three things:


1. Growth stimulant : minoxidil, cu peptides, lasercomb (possibly).

2. DHT: propecia, an anti-androgen (fluridil, spironolactone, fatty acids, Ru).

3. Inflammation: cu peptides, nizoral, ?possibly again the lasercomb?.


Each of these 3 things are very important. I for one would rather use cu peptides than nizoral, but each of these 3 things should be addressed to successfully fight, not win, the battle of hairloss. Cu peptides also fall within two of these 3 categories. 2 outta 3 aint bad!!!

 

[mvpsoft]

Yes, I am prepared to extrapolate. Would you have me say that every product that hasn't gone through FDA phase III trials is completely ineffectual. There is enough evidence behind revivogen for me to make very strong claims about its merit.

Remember the makers of Tricomin are unable to make any claims that the product regrows hair.

You're looking at the wrong study. The study that Bryan cited showed that copper peptides regrew hair on mice.

I'm not claiming that FDA trials are the only viable studies. You know that, are you intentionally trying to put words in my mouth? What I'm claiming -- as I've said twice now, but apparently you missed it -- is that all Revivogen has done is take a bunch of ingredients that studies have shown are anti-androgens either in vitro or in some cases in animal organs. They've put them together, but there is not a single study to show that (1) these are effective when put together rather than acting separately, and (2) they are effective on either a human scalp or the skin of animals physiologically similar to humans, such as rodents.

Copper peptides, OTOH, have been proven to regrow hair on mice, and according to the world's leading cu researcher, the reason is that they enlarge the hair follicles.

Given the state of the evidence, it's clear to me that copper peptides are a more proven option, if one is going to do one or the other. That is especially so when the person is already taking finasteride.

 

[Red Rose]

Have you ever used revivogen before?? If you have not, trust me it is not a pleasurable thing to apply. :wink:

Yes and agreed :wink:

I do feel differently though, I would much rather use finasteride, min, and cu peptides. To each his own........................

I admit Cu peptides are great for optimum scalp health and to treat fibrosis (so important, yes) but I think the phase II trials should be treated with a certain amount of circumspect.

 

[Red Rose]

You're looking at the wrong study. The study that Bryan cited showed that copper peptides regrew hair on mice.

Lets see the study then.

 

[mvpsoft]

You're looking at the wrong study. The study that Bryan cited showed that copper peptides regrew hair on mice.

Lets see the study then.

http://www.skinbiology.com/2004RussiaHa ... eling.html

It includes a picture of one of the actual mice. Keep in mind that mice grow hair much faster than humans do, but they are physiologically similar to humans. This is a link to an article that includes a number of citations in the footnotes.

Note in the following quote the synergistic effect the researchers note between both fatty acids and CUs and minoxidil and CUs.

One of the more exciting developments in skin research in recent years is the finding that hair follicles are the source of stem cells for the skin. (8,9) But long before these discoveries that linked hair follicles and skin repair, I had observed that, after treating skin wounds with GHK-Cu, that there was a profound enlargement of the hair follicles of the skin at the wound edge. To develop these discoveries for commercial uses, in 1985 I started a company called ProCyte. Further work with radioisotopes in mice indicated that the SRCP was present at the site of injection for only about 30 seconds before being cleared from the area. This meant that a very brief exposure of the follicle to the SRCP was sufficient to produce an increase in hair follicle volume of 4 to 8-fold and increased hair growth within 12 days.

Further work by Steven Lovejoy (University of Washington) and myself found that the chemical addition of fat-like molecules, such as fatty acids or hydrophobic amino acid residues, to GHK-Cu, resulted in an intensified follicle enlargement action and more strongly stimulated the rate of hair growth in young mice. Even in undamaged mouse skin, one intradermal injection of the SRCPs induced accelerated hair growth after twelve days. Work with radioisotopes indicated that the SRCPs was present at the site of injection for only about 30 seconds before being cleared from the area. (10)

These discoveries were later verified and extended by Hideo Uno at the University of Wisconsin. Uno had written The UpJohn Company's textbook for physicians when Rogaine (minoxidil) first was marketed. Using hair growth models in mice and rats, Uno found that SRCPs convert fine, short vellus hairs into thicker pigmented terminal hairs.

Uno studied the details of hair stimulation by SRCPs in C3H mice and “Fuzzyâ€￾ rats by 1) phototrichogram, 2) folliculogram (micro morphometric analysis), and 3) the rate of DNA synthesis in the follicular cells. He found that in C3H mice, the SRCPs stimulated of the follicular cell proliferation, resulting in an enlargement of the anagen follicles from vellus types that produce small, thin hair to terminal follicles that produce thick, long hair. type The SRCPs also maintained follicles in the anagen phase longer. In Fuzzy rats, a genetic strain that has only short vellus hair, the SRCPs had the effect of enlarging the small vellus follicles. (11-12).

Also of interest were studies by Awa and Nogimori of Kaken Pharmaceuticals reported, that in mice, pretreatment with SRCPs blocked hair loss induced the cancer chemotherapy drugs cytosine arabinoside and doxorubicin. If mice were first treated with chemotherapeutic drugs to induce hair loss, subsequent treatment with SRCPs accelerated the recovery of lost hair. (13)

Bernard Kalis (University of Reims) was the first to demonstrate that SRCPs also had positive actions on hair follicle functions in humans. His studies used phototrichogram analysis that found SRCPs caused a greater proportion of human follicles to switch from the dormant telogen state into the hair-growing anagen state. (14) A later placebo-controlled, three-month study in male humans found a SRCP (Ala-His-Lys: copper(II)) in a product called Tricomin increased the terminal hairs and was 32% more effective than the control group that used 2% minoxidil in this study. (15)

Hideo Uno has commented that while minoxidil primarily stimulates new vellus hair growth, the SRCPs are more effective in the conversion of vellus hair into terminal hairs and suggested that the combined use of minoxidil and SRCPs would have a synergistic actions and be most effective

 

[Red Rose]

To quote from the article:

“…it is also apparent that the SRCPs are not miracle hair growth therapies.â€￾

Right i haven't trawled through the study but I couldn't see any mention of the strength of the SRCP’s used with the mouse in the clinical trial.

If the strength of the copper peptide used on the mouse is 20% for the sake of argument then we can’t extrapolate anything from the study because Folligen is only about a 1 % copper peptide concentration. When we talk about copper peptides we are referring to Tricomin and Folligen not the SRCP used in that particular trial.

Here is an extract of an interview between regrowth and Dr. Pickart http://www.regrowth.com/hair_loss_inter ... erview.cfm

Regrowth: GraftCyte, Iamin, and Folligen all contain less than 1% of their active ingredient. The studies on Tricomin on 1.25% and 2.5% formula showed only the 2.5% formula was effective for hair loss. Why does Folligen not include a similar percentage of active ingredient? Do you believe Folligen would be more effective than currently if it used a similar higher percentage?

Dr Pickart: Folligen probably would be more active at a higher percentage. But we are fighting the blue color problem. Also, skin irritation might occur at higher concentrations. We still need controlled clinical studies to optimize Folligen.

As I’m sure you would agree just because an agent grows hair on a mouse and performs well in trials does not mean that once it is released on the cosmetic line that it will perform equally as well, especially when the concentrations of CP are not consistent with those used in the studies and clinical trials you refer to. :wink:

Oh BTW I still fail to see the difference between the study I submitted on GSE with this study. The study on topical application of 1% procyanidin oligomers is also on shaven mice.

 

[mvpsoft]

The difference is that the mouse study was on actual hair, on actual skin, and the hair regrew faster with the copper peptides. Please show me a study with Revivogen on actual hair, on actual skin. Also, there are several studies referenced in that article, not just one. Now, the cu's were injected, not applied topically, and we don't know the strength, but this is much stronger evidence that cu's promote regrowth than anything that Revivogen proponents can cite.

Let's face it RR, all we have with Revivogen is that individual ingredients can in vitro or in some animal organs (not skin) inhibit DHT. That's it. Nothing about skin, nothing about hair, nothing about regrowth. With copper peptides, we have at least evidence of regrowth of actual hair on actual skin. None of the studies are perfect. But if we have to choose between the ones involving copper peptides or the ones involving Revivogen, there is no contest. The cu studies are much closer to what we actually want to accomplish on our heads.

You can extrapolate all you want, which is exactly what the advocates of saw palmetto do, but for me, give me clinical results that are as close as possible to actual hair regrowth, and I'll go with that.

Look, I use Revivogen, although when my current bottle is gone, I'm not ordering more. But if the goal is to grow hair, there simply is less conclusive evidence supporting it than the evidence supporting copper peptides.

 

[Cassin]

Red Rose

Here is Dr Pickarts exact quote regarding that link on Regrowth. Dr Pickart and I had about a 20 email back and forth discussion one day about CP's and the FDA. In the end I asked him about that link and this is what he said. I know it is sorta confusing since the context is screwed since we were at the end of a VERY long discussion, but basically he says the quote from regrowth is fake.

*****************************************************

Me Dr Pickart

Thank you very much for your reply. I was confused about the concentration of CP's used in the FDA trials. The interview I read from you must have had a typo...this is what it says if you want to correct regrowth

Thanks again

****

regrowth: GraftCyte, Iamin, and Folligen all contain less than 1% of their active ingredient. The studies on Tricomin on 1.25% and 2.5% formula showed only the 2.5% formula was effective for hair loss. Why does Folligen not include a similar percentage of active ingredient? Do you believe Folligen would be more effective than currently if it used a similar higher percentage?

Dr. Pickarthis quote from the site) Folligen probably would be more active at a higher percentage. But we are fighting the blue color problem. Also, skin irritation might occur at higher concentrations. We still need controlled clinical studies to optimize Folligen.

http://www.regrowth.com/hair_loss_inter ... erview.cfm

Dr Pickart(His reply to me) "Folligen has about 8 times more copper peptide than Tricomin.

It is about 9% copper peptide.

I don't know what Regrowth is talking about and they don't know either. We stopped placing ads with Regrowth
and they stopped recommending Folligen.

 

[Red Rose]

Thanks Cassin for that.

The thing is Pickart has also in the past made claims about the strength of tricomin used in the FDA trials (0.4%) that are inconsistent with the strength of tricomin Procyte claimed they used in the trials. Clearly if Dr Pickart is misinformed about that he could be, politely put, misinformed about other things.

If you believe Pickart then SRCPs are more specific inhibitors of DHT than propecia and have a greater action than minoxidil on follicle enlargement. Well I challenge anyone to use folligen for any length of time by itself and to claim results, because they won’t.

I personally am not persuaded that products like Folligen or Tricomin are good for anything other than inflammation/fibrosis. Besides the FDA trials which we should treat with some caution I have not seen enough hard and fast clinical data that show that these products promote hair growth/increased hair weight on human scalps.

The study on the mouse came equipped with two important provisos namely (1) human hair growth will not respond nearly as dramatically as in mice and (2) the effects in humans on hair follicle health are not as dramatic.

Any reference on skinbiology’s website to CPs promoting hair growth on human scalps is fancy window dressing IMO. As far as CPs are concerned the emphasis has always been on them promoting a better environment for hair to grow rather than being used as a hair-growth agent. Look at the anecdotal evidence; I don’t think I have ever seen anyone admit that they use CPs for out and out hair growth.

 

[viperfish]

Well Cassin I think that clears it up! I was just going to say that thing on regrowth was wrong! By the way do you know the % of cu in tricomin????

 

[viperfish]

I guess if folligen has 8x more copper and is a 9% cu solution, tricomin or american crew would be roughly a 1.13% cu solution.

 

[Cassin]

Clearly if Dr Pickart is misinformed about that he could be, politely put, misinformed about other things.

Agreed, it's sorta like you have to catch him on a clear day, he is rather old now. :shock:

Well I challenge anyone to use folligen for any length of time by itself and to claim results, because they won’t.

Agreed for male pattern baldness, as for other derm issues, that's another story.

I personally am not persuaded that products like Folligen or Tricomin are good for anything other than inflammation/fibrosis.

Agreed but not in the tone I think you are stating(I could be wrong about your tone). It seems to me you almost state that as a negative thing? IMHO inflammation/fibrosis is as important as DHT in the long run for fighting hairloss.

Besides the FDA trials which we should treat with some caution I have not seen enough hard and fast clinical data that show that these products promote hair growth/increased hair weight on human scalps.

Do you not think that inflammation/fibrosis hinder hair growth and hair weight?

Any reference on skinbiology’s website to CPs promoting hair growth on human scalps is fancy window dressing IMO. As far as CPs are concerned the emphasis has always been on them promoting a better environment for hair to grow rather than being used as a hair-growth agent. Look at the anecdotal evidence; I don’t think I have ever seen anyone admit that they use CPs for out and out hair growth.

But a healthy scalp grows hair stronger, more healthy, and well, more hair on it. So your argument sorta chases it's own tail don't you think?

Now, would I use CP's alone to fight male pattern baldness? Nope, but it is a wonderful and very useful adjunct to a solid regimen. I would recommend anyone needing regrowth and using Minoxidil to use CP's as well.

 

[Cassin]

Well Cassin I think that clears it up! I was just going to say that thing on regrowth was wrong! By the way do you know the % of cu in tricomin????

No I have always been very confused about this since I have spoken to Dr Pickart in that email.

Procyte and SkinBiology are two very different CP compounds so do the percentages matter compared to each other? I don't think so. We will never know which one is better. My best results with irritation come with Tricomin but thats just me.

 

[mvpsoft]

If you believe Pickart then SRCPs are more specific inhibitors of DHT than propecia and have a greater action than minoxidil on follicle enlargement. Well I challenge anyone to use folligen for any length of time by itself and to claim results, because they won’t.

No one in this thread has even come close to suggesting that. The issue in this thread is if you can only choose one, which is likely to be more effective, copper peptides or Revivogen. It has now become clear that the evidence supporting copper peptides, when it comes to actual hair regrowth, is far more compelling than the evidence supporting Revivogen.

 

[Red Rose]

Do you not think that inflammation/fibrosis hinder hair growth and hair weight?

But a healthy scalp grows hair stronger, more healthy, and well, more hair on it. So your argument sorta chases it's own tail don't you think?

Now, would I use CP's alone to fight male pattern baldness? Nope, but it is a wonderful and very useful adjunct to a solid regimen. I would recommend anyone needing regrowth and using Minoxidil to use CP's as well.

Yeah I agree that to some extent I am chasing tails so to completely clarify my position, I do not think that CPs will produce better results in conjunction with the Big 3 than revivogen w/Big 3 :lol:

 

[Red Rose]

It has now become clear that the evidence supporting copper peptides, when it comes to actual hair regrowth, is far more compelling than the evidence supporting Revivogen.

I am prepared to concede that there may be more evidence supporting copper peptides but I wouldn't say it was more compelling.