compare2 - published drawbacks of Minoxidil and Propecia preparations

Swapna Hair Enricher......................................The Grooming Invention to Hair Ahead

Hair Saver Plus for Simultaneous Hairloss / excess hair fall and Dandruff Control - Site map 1

Save Today to Comb Tomorrow

Invention - Why Hair Saver categorical proofs... Technology for Philanthropy...Swapna .Non sticky Oil .

2 other ways to Haircare......-.......Tips for the Top .RUfooled ...Social / Public matters: spicy shots

Compare 2

Highlights

This page presents Some Published Research / Press reports about Propecia and Minoxidil. Please study Compare for feature wise comparison with Swapna Hair Enricher

Presentation

2 highly reputed successful companies with world wide presence, known for their Research, are offering 2 different theories / products - for the same illness. I have tried to present my version, without any bias. My invention, as per my analysis of the facts available to me, seems better than their products. That does not mean that these products are inferior. If there be any error, oversight or unwarranted inference, just let me know. I will correct it suitably, if required
Hairloss is an undefined term by both companies. They are Treatments and not Cures. Details of Minoxidil is presented first, followed by Propecia - some research reports, market details and my views.

FDA, US approval of Minoxidil and Propecia !

weak basis for approval ? Reasons for FDA approval of Minoxidil and Propecia as Hair Regain products appear weak if one goes by some Research reports and the market performance of the products. It does not measure up to the efficacy or performance expected from such regulatory approvals
The details below would also reinforce my point that Hair Research in Allopathy is very shallow and pathetic - hardly any progress in the last 50 years, be it Hormone Therapy in 1965, UV in 1970, Minoxidil in 1984 or Propecia in 1997.

Minoxidil - Upjohn to Pharmicia Upjohn to Pfizer: now looking for a buyer

concoction from a blood dilator Minoxidil is a blood dilator. One of its undesirable side effects was 'growth of hair in unwanted places' amongst some patients.
This drawback led to a concoction - 'minoxidil 2%' in alcoholic media as a topical application product claiming that it can stimulate hair gain / growth - additional demand for the unexpected side effect of Minoxidil ?

Propecia - E. Merck

DHT theory is flawed

for more, refer

dht
Finasteride, the active ingredient of Propecia, acts as a blocker of DHT, dihydroxy Testosterone - according to Merck, this is the cause for hereditary baldness
This theory is flawed at the outset, if you think for a minute. Testosterone / male hormone [ T of DHT ] production goes down after age 40 and consequently the production of DHT has to go down. So, with aging, many should come out of male pattern alopecia, without any medicine. And the reality is just the opposite, if we look around. Hence, Merck' theory is very shallow and unscientific.

Proscar contains roughly 5 times more Finasteride compared to Propecia. Millions must have taken Proscar to ease enlarged prostrates. Proscar is earlier to Propecia and the users must have included hereditary hairloss sufferers too.

I did not find any mention anywhere that they or anyone got control of hairloss or gained hair growth. Merck could have conducted a survey and found the actual position. Either they did not do it, doctors did not notice any beneficial side effect or the findings are not disclosed to the public.

Proscar should reinforce Propecia. It does not. Instead, I see distinct disassociation. The act is suspect because it is deliberate and intentional - you do not expect that from a Company like Merck. They do not either believe in their own theory or underplay other relevant / inconvenient points ?

Propecia

Press Reports

Propecia is a patented and branded product of E.Merck. It contains Finasteride.

Express Pharma Pulse dated 1-1-98.
source: The Financial Times of Reuter's report: Selected quotes:

..." Price stressed that the new drug was for men only because it can cause birth defects in developing foetuses. ..Women who are pregnant or who may be pregnant should not even handle the tablets if they are crushed or broken"..

..." And it won't work on areas that are bald as a baby's bottom or billiard ball" Price said.."

Reprint of AP report by Times of India, Ahmedabad dt 27-12-97: Selected quotes:

...." The Food and Drug Administration announced Monday that it approved Propecia, the first pill for Male Pattern Baldness, "...

..." For men, Propecia is not a miracle pill. About half who use it, grow varying amounts of hair and men may have to use it for six months to a year before they learn whether they are among the half that benefits, Washenik said"..

[ New Theory: If DHT is the cause for half, the reverse THD must be the villain for the other half. Someone should do research in America, as American Universities are flush with funds ]

Propecia - drawbacks as I see it

1. DHT, dihydroxy Testosterone is stated to be the cause for male pattern alopecia. How can that be if it can work at best on less than 50% of the heads ? It does not seem logical

More importantly, Testosterone / male hormone production goes down after age 40 and consequently the production of DHT should also go down. So if DHT be the cause, should not some males recover hair on their own after age 40 ?

2. Propecia was approved only by 8 out of 13 panelists in the FDA approval committee. It was not approved by all. FDA asked Merck to supply a neutral Shampoo to supplement Propecia. Why ?

3. E. Merck presented photo proofs to FDA to show the impact of Propecia in the Vertex and Anterior areas. If that is a supportive proof for getting FDA approval, why such photo proofs for Hair Regain is not easily available to the public in the web site ? It raises doubts.

4. Propecia was tested with over 1800 persons for 2 years. Users self assessments was one of the 4 testing methods - Yet there are no worthwhile report of any single user, in my view, in the site.

6. DHT theory cannot explain or solve hairloss amongst female - and they account for 50% population

Minoxidil

Minoxidil - one research finding

Source: Recent Advances in Dermatology; Book No 8 Editors: R.H. Champion & R.J.Pye; Churchill Livingstone; 1990. Male pattern alopecia - selected sentences only

Now "Olsen, who reported the first dose response studies of topical minoxidil (Olsen et al 1986), has recently reported on the long term follow up results in men with male pattern alopecia whom she has now treated for nearly 3 years. In only 4.9% of these patients was the result assessed as ' moderate'. 82.9% of patients having 'minimal response.'......"

" Hair regrowth induced by topical minoxidil is lost once the drug is stopped"..

" Published results on the treatment of androgenic alopecia with topical Minoxidil in women are so far incomplete"....

Minoxidil - some more views

1. 'Coping with Sudden Hair Loss' - Elizabeth Steel

The book mentions that Minoxidil 5% which was not permitted in US, was tried in some European Countries without much success. Minoxidil 2% was also not that effective and useful for many. The author is a TV announcer. She wears a wig because of her hair condition.

2. Rogaine Extra Strength: It is Minoxidil 5% solution. The product, Minoxidil 2%, has been used by 5 Million persons since 1988. Extra Strength has not been clinically demonstrated for women and so, it is not sold in America. Yet, the product was sold to women in 14 other countries under the brand name, 'rogaine'.

After 2003 or 2004, this 5% has become an OTC product in America. For further / current details, refer to the website http://www.rogaine.com

3. Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Dr.Reddy's Laboratories, and perhaps some more in India, got the license to produce / sell Minoxidil in India.

Torrent sold the product under the brand name 'Multigain'. In the leaflet circulated amongst Doctors by M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Olsen's initial report of 1985, but not her 1987 unfavourable report, based on 3 years trials of Minoxidil, quoted above, was mentioned. Doctors got the old reports !

Torrent withdrew the product by 1995. It failed in the market. The MD of Paras Pharmaceuticals told me in Dec 1995 or so that Torrent's failure does not enthuse him to venture into hair products in the near future. [ they have 5 products now in 2007 ] You have take my words on that.

Dr. Reddy was also a licensee. To my 3 requests for literature, they only sent me 'self pregnancy test kit / literature' 4 to 5 times, between 1995 to 1998 - as a male, they had no relevance for me. But they did not to send the requested literature was a negative point. Cipla also sells Minoxidil - learnt today. They also make Proscar under license. Interested Indian browsers can refer to Cipla's website

4. Minoxidil is available to the public perhaps from 1985 or so. It is a product with over 120 Million Dollar Sales as of 1998 or 1999. Nearly 80% of the Sales in United States. I did not see one photo proof for Minoxidil, when I went through several Dermatological Books between 1992 to 1996.

	The Photographs for Swapna
.	.	.
.	Generally in Dermatological Books electron microscope photos of 0.01 to 0.1 million times magnification of the actual size are presented to show hair gain. We have done the opposite. A photograph, as presented in this site, is much less than the actual size / may be one tenth the actual size.	.

	These companies can present more photo proofs. They have larger number of users and the finance. Yet they have not done that. Why ?

One Limitation in Presentation

The two companies have conducted outside clinical tests. The details of other products are from published sources. So there is difference in data collection. The public, in their wisdom, normally believe the published / publicised versions. Clinical tests can also be manipulated and inconvenient facts can be weeded out

The comparison has been made by me and not by any outsider or independent agency. The information in this note does not constitute Medical advice. These are the limitations in the above table contents.

I made these tables to present my achievement, for whatever it is worth, as an individual. If there be any error or unwanted oversights, please let me know

Technology Sales: - Swapna Non sticky Oil

I conveyed about the introduction of these Compare pages to the 2 companies in 2003. Till 6-1-2008, nothing has been heard from them or from any researcher. Please also refer to these 2 companies web sites for latest information in their own words. http://www.propecia.com and http://www.rogaine.com

Swapna Hair Enricher - Always Ahead for the ever expanding Opening spaces: The hairsaverplus Site map 1

2 other ways to Haircare...-...Tips for the Top .RUfooled ...Social / Public matters: spicy shots

Errors and Omissions exempted. If there be any unwanted oversights, mistake in content or suggestions for improvements, please e mail us

Main / original content: 2001: Last minor modifications: Feb 27, 2010: Personal website of R. Ranganathan M.Sc., [ MBA - IIMA]


Presentation

	2 highly reputed successful companies with world wide presence, known for their Research, are offering 2 different theories / products - for the same illness. I have tried to present my version, without any bias. My invention, as per my analysis of the facts available to me, seems better than their products. That does not mean that these products are inferior. If there be any error, oversight or unwarranted inference, just let me know. I will correct it suitably, if required Hairloss is an undefined term by both companies. They are Treatments and not Cures. Details of Minoxidil is presented first, followed by Propecia - some research reports, market details and my views.


FDA, US approval of Minoxidil and Propecia !

weak basis for approval ?	Reasons for FDA approval of Minoxidil and Propecia as Hair Regain products appear weak if one goes by some Research reports and the market performance of the products. It does not measure up to the efficacy or performance expected from such regulatory approvals The details below would also reinforce my point that Hair Research in Allopathy is very shallow and pathetic - hardly any progress in the last 50 years, be it Hormone Therapy in 1965, UV in 1970, Minoxidil in 1984 or Propecia in 1997.


Minoxidil - Upjohn to Pharmicia Upjohn to Pfizer: now looking for a buyer

concoction from a blood dilator	Minoxidil is a blood dilator. One of its undesirable side effects was 'growth of hair in unwanted places' amongst some patients. This drawback led to a concoction - 'minoxidil 2%' in alcoholic media as a topical application product claiming that it can stimulate hair gain / growth - additional demand for the unexpected side effect of Minoxidil ?


Propecia - E. Merck

DHT theory is flawed for more, refer dht	Finasteride, the active ingredient of Propecia, acts as a blocker of DHT, dihydroxy Testosterone - according to Merck, this is the cause for hereditary baldness This theory is flawed at the outset, if you think for a minute. Testosterone / male hormone [ T of DHT ] production goes down after age 40 and consequently the production of DHT has to go down. So, with aging, many should come out of male pattern alopecia, without any medicine. And the reality is just the opposite, if we look around. Hence, Merck' theory is very shallow and unscientific. Proscar contains roughly 5 times more Finasteride compared to Propecia. Millions must have taken Proscar to ease enlarged prostrates. Proscar is earlier to Propecia and the users must have included hereditary hairloss sufferers too. I did not find any mention anywhere that they or anyone got control of hairloss or gained hair growth. Merck could have conducted a survey and found the actual position. Either they did not do it, doctors did not notice any beneficial side effect or the findings are not disclosed to the public. Proscar should reinforce Propecia. It does not. Instead, I see distinct disassociation. The act is suspect because it is deliberate and intentional - you do not expect that from a Company like Merck. They do not either believe in their own theory or underplay other relevant / inconvenient points ?