I agree but you are also not totally correct because two studies in two different countries using two different mechanisms produced great results. It is unlikely that both study assigned good responders using random sorting. The probability of this happening is too low. It has been proven that this works and at the very least considerably improves the response of the de facto big 3, which in my opinion should be min+finasteride+dermarolling.
I agree that this isn't the cure but it merits it's position in the de facto 3 treatments we are using currently. I mean Nizoral has weak results backing it up when you compare it with research in wounding.
I'm saying that you odds improve when you add wounding.
The Chinese study was twice the length of the Indian study, so either their methodology was more effective and powerful or it was just more dermarolling on a longer time frame that increased the percentage of responders to this therapy. I don't see why dermarolling should not be considered a permanent addition to the de facto trio of treatment when there are three different blind studies that show that it is significantly better than minoxidil alone. These studies has no corporate backing or conflict of interest. In fact, the head of the Indian study became an advisory after she did the study.
http://www.follicabio.com/biocoming-soon
I have posted this pictures to show evidence outside of the study because four things are surely true-
1. Hair follicles do not die. This is a myth.
"The follicles that make hair don't go away completely, but they become miniaturized, to the point where the hair they normally make to replace hair when it naturally falls out becomes microscopic and therefore invisible," Cotsarelis said.
2. Wounding releases growth factors and forces random hair neogenesis.
3. There has been no study in the long term benefits of wounding apart from experiences from people who have tried it long term and almost all of them are on their way to at least NW2. So, we don't know if bad responders will just take much longer or if it won't work for them considering there is a study on 4 participants that got worse on min+finasteride and even they started responding to min+derma(finasteride was dropped) after dermarolling was incorporated into their regimen.
4. The body does not run out of growth factors.
I have no desire to say this is the holy grail and we have solved it. Not at all. Because the holy grail is figuring out how to push random neogenesis toward predictable neogenesis which in my opinion is the true cure.
I posted these results to inspire people in a way that shows them that they have nothing to lose and only better odds of recovery to gain. I posted them for myself who has given up in spite of results because it hurts like hell, and I didn't respond to min and finasteride either. finasteride caused a shed and devastated my hairline. It is now maintaining it just above baseline. So many of us give up early because it's a f*****g chore to do this stuff and I just want people to try this long term because we don't know if this keeps working the more we do it. This is what the participants in the thread should focus on. This is what I should focus on. We need to figure out if the more we do it and the longer we do, do we keep getting benefits? Because Somebody, MyThinningConfidence and the guy on whom this thread is based on have had continued benefit from dermarolling. We also need to figure out if applying minoxidil right after dermarolling is better than dermarolling alone and I did my first session and applied right after on my worst hit area, a circular area 1.5 inch in diameter on my crown. Apart from the initial sting for a few seconds(similar to what I felt when I used Somebody's method), it didn't cause any side effects. It was just 0.5ml and that is enough for such a small area.
I posted these results because I too am a pessimist and too scientific. I don't believe things easily either. But that studies have me intrigued and I have to try now and make a commitment that I will do it over a long period of time, say 1.5 years or even 2 years, and do so once every two weeks to either prove or disprove this theory.
There is no other way of knowing if it works.
