|
.....RU Fooled................Can we be Fooled in hair care products or claims ?...Possible ! Routinely done |
|
..........Why ?.. The present 20 plus Major Medical Therapies have no easy cure for either hairloss, dandruff or both |
|
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 |
| DHT |
|
The DHT theory of E. Merck, is shallow and porous. This page questions DHT |
| DHT neither explains hairloss nor hair retention | ||
| All
Males produce the Male Hormone, Testosterone.
Testosterone
provides the base for DHT, dihydroxy Testosterone.
The T in DHT is testosterone If DHT is accepted even for a minute as the cause for hairloss, why should it work at best on less than 50% of the heads. The theory sounds very confused and concocted. Not all males suffer from hairloss or male pattern alopecia. Even granting that 40% suffer from hair loss / depletion, others remain unaffected. That is, over 60% males retain the hair / density despite producing Testosterone, which is unexplained ! Is it not open, glaring contradiction / anomaly For above reasons, DHT theory is extremely porous in my view |
||
| If there be no Testosterone, should there not be automatic self recovery ? | ||
| More importantly, Testosterone
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 ? |
||
| DHT theory cannot explain or solve hairloss amongst females | ||
| Now look at some Arithmetic.
Males account roughly for 50% of the population. DHT theory is irrelevant
for the hair retention capacity of 60% amongst them as stated above
The Theory as propounded has relevance for 50 x 40 = 20% of the population. Refer to the Press Reports produced at the end of this page or Propecia website. ..." 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".. That means, it has relevance for only 10% of the total population at best. Even that is wishful thinking ! For men, Propecia is not a miracle pill. About half who use it, grow varying amounts of hair ' as per Washenik [ Dr. Warshenik is a Bald Dermatologist. He wished to try Propecia when he made the above comments. What happened afterwards is not known to me ] That is, a porous theory is further weakened / contradicted by the claimed results / impact of Propecia |
||
| Press Reports on Propecia | ||
| Propecia
is a patented and branded product of E. Merck. It contains Finasteride.
Express Pharma
Pulse dated 1-1-98.
..." 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".. |
||
| Drawbacks of Propecia, as noted from website / Press Reports | ||
| Propecia of E. Merck
harps on DHT.
Propecia was approved only by 8 out of 13 panelists in the FDA approval committee. It was not approved by all and that is a very relevant point. FDA, US, asked Merck to supply a neutral Shampoo to supplement Propecia. Why ? |
||
| DHT has selective residing centres on the head ! | ||
| 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. Merck says, Propecia, if it impacts, does not work on the complete area of the head - the impact level varies at different spots of the head. It cannot do much on the front, the area others see first on your head. The sides ? why bother if the front is going to be barren ? Do Propecia / E. Merck or the resellers of Propecia, highlight these points to the Public ? No, if you go through some of the sites on the web |
||
| Something is hidden whereas it should have been open ! | ||
| Propecia was tested
with over 1800 persons for 2 years.
Users self assessments
was one of the 4 testing methods
Why there is no mention of the users self assessments in the Propecia site ? Is it something confidential and fit only to the FDA, US and not worth conveying to the Public ! |
||
| Evidence available, but not collected or presented - Proscar angle | ||
| Proscar of E.
Merck is a prescription drug for patients suffering from enlarged prostrates.
It is much earlier to Propecia, introduced in 1998. The active ingredient
of Propecia is Finasteride. Proscar contains 5 times
more Finasteride compared to Propecia.
Persons who use / used Proscar should have got some new hair growth with continued usage / 5 times of dose of Propecia. Or they did not get any, because of the higher dosage. It is logical to infer that the dosage of Finasteride / Proscar must have given some solid clue to E. Merck about the impact of Finasteride on Hair. You do not just pick up a Chemical from the Chemical Dictionary or Encyclopedia and loud mouth it to the World, before dwelling deep into the initial anecdotal evidence or the Doctors comments, collected from patients and research further Merck could have easily conducted a Market Survey amongst the users of Proscar. As it costs peanuts for such a work, it is difficult for me to believe that it was not done. And there is no mention of Proscar or its possible beneficial impact on hair, if dosage is adjusted, either in Merck's website of Propecia. If Finasteride was great enough, would not E. Merck presented that 'findings' as the 5th set of evidence to the FDA, US. They did not do it. Why ? As outsiders we would not come to know But Finasteride is perhaps not that effective as the high decibel sounds make them. As a researcher, whose invention and results preceded Propecia, the above details make me doubt the efficacy of that Chemical / slightly opaque presentation |
||
End Note: Do males have the guts to marry a balding / bald woman ? Not many would dare. Women do. E. Merck's shallow theory ignores Women - 50% of the population.
|
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: after 2001: Last minor modifications: Feb 28, 2010: Personal website of R. Ranganathan M.Sc., [ MBA - IIMA] |