GoliGoliGoli

Lots of people are concerned with that. What does this have to do with Fin? Very little. If you want to discuss Fin discuss fin, not food allergies. Argument by analogy is messy and not specific. Lots of people are concerned with that. What does this have to do with Fin? Very little. If you want to discuss Fin discuss fin, not deleterious chemicals in the food supply. Argument by analogy is messy and not specific. Incorrect. See below. DHT plays a role in ocular health, kidney health, liver health, cardiac health, etc etc. You can make an argument that Fin is still safe because it isn't reducing DHT to 0, but saying as you did that "There is very little evidence on DHT being an important hormone in adulthood and it is known to cause more harm then good." shows a high degree of scientific illiteracy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7308241/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25268392/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24257908/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6459338/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16317058/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7308241/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6459338/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21079217/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7308241/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6459338/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7308241/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6459338/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6459338/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6459338/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6459338/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19040620/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6459338/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31074799/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12826696/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4629627/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23509861/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24764121/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5964967/ My position is that all men are better off at their natural DHT levels (Assuming it's within normal range). My position is that DHT is a super important androgen well past puberty. My position is that it's never good to use pharmacological agents to disrupt your endocrine system unless it's absolutely needed (Hypogonadal men for example). That said, you can make a reasonable argument that Fin is safe if the person taking it has informed consent, because using Fin still leaves you with some DHT. I'm not on board with that argument but nevertheless it's a reasonable argument to make.

It's pretty self-explanatory. There is a difference between your hormonal profile altering from what you ate or how you slept compared to your hormonal profile altering by drastically cutting your levels of DHT through a pharmacological mechanism. Argument by analogy is a poor basis on which to build an argument. It's better to use first principles thinking as a basis for an argument.

It really is... I guess this is the cost of trying to play God! In Kevin's most recent oral min video he says he isn't convinced that oral bypasses the sulfotransferase issue but who knows maybe he is wrong.

This is really not a good argument....

Is there any evidence that oral is better than topical? As in Kevin's most recent video, it does seem logical that saturating the hair follicle with min would be superior than taking orally? I get that it's more convenient to take orally, but I'm not at all sold that it produces better results.

Yes I consider myself such a case. Search for "Nader crown" and you will find my thread. I will do an 8 month update soon. Overall very pleased with my results.

Ok that's fine if you don't agree with his hypothesis, but you said "If you understand how Finasteride (and Dutasteride) works, then you also understand why permanent and irreversible side effects of finasteride is total BS." So tell us in your own words, how does Fin/Dut work and what about how it works makes it so that permanent and irreversible side effects are BS?

So far both the people who reacted negatively to this thread have had nothing of substance to say in response to the points made in the video.

Explain it to us then. The Dr provided a reasonable hypothesis in the video for why it’s possible

Thanks for sharing. Great discussion and good pushback from Attia as well.

This looks like an extremely natural and good result especially for only 5 months. You're a quick grower. Mind posting some pictures outside in sunlight? This may be shaping up to be one of the top results of the year. Not as dramatic or challenging a case as guys who guy huge numbers of grafts, but the density and naturalness is really perfectly achieved.

I suppose this is because the Dr will simply be better able to see where in the donor has been tapped out when the procedures are smaller and spaced farther apart? Just want to make sure I fully understand, thanks!

I'm still pretty confused tbh. What exactly does Dr Vano mean by "patients were monitored for 3 months not given it 3 months prior"? In Kevin's most recent video at 17:40 there is a screen shot of the text from the study and the wording is: "The mean duration of treatment was 7.9 months with a range of 3-79 months". The quote isn't in full context but why is the range duration of treatment 3-79 months? Doesn't that suggest that patients enrolled in the study all had been on oral minoxidil for 3 months at the time of the study began since otherwise the range would be 0-79 months? Would be good to hear Dr Vano's full explanation.

Sorry, it's the left temple that's too square, not the right. The right actually looks really good and natural when the hair is grown out.

I think this was already said, but the left temple looks good when hair is grown out, it's the right temple that is definitely too square. It basically makes a perfect 90 degree angle and as Bisanga said usually Caucasian's don't have temple points that are that defined. Both temples definitely look better with the hair grown out so I think as long as you keep them grown out it really doesn't look bad or super unnatural. As you've already highlighted, the bigger issue from the planning perspective is not that the temples look unnatural (Like I said it isn't so bad when sides are grown out) but that they went way too aggressive with the hairline and temples given your personal situation and donor availability. So ya you basically have two screw ups from Eugenix here (Sorry to be harsh): 1st is that they went too aggressive, and 2nd is that they didn't do a good job executing on both temples, but especially on the right one.

It's a great point and one I say all the time. On forums like these you often hear people give "default answers" to anyone who comes asking questions. This is because so many new people come here and ask the same question over and over, so responders don't have time to delve into persons medication usage, family history of baldness, financial situation that will allow for multiple HT's, donor availability etc. Every patient is completely different in regards to these 4 variables and many other variables that make their case unique. But because responders don't have time to delve into everyone's individual case, they respond with "Stock answers" or "Default answers". An example from my personal experience is that people told me not to do crown work before doing hairline work, and that's a "default answer" on here and is probably true for 90-95% of guys. But for me I'm really glad I did crown work and no hairline work. In your case, I'd worry not about what NW0 looks like at 30, I'd worry about what it looks like at 45 and beyond. Yep exactly. Maybe someone with really good photoshop skills could help, but even that is a risk because a photoshop rendering will not be able to mimic what your result will look like.

Temple point is the hardest area of a HT to do good work on. It's very hard to mimic nature as this hair has a very unique diameter/feel/direction. I'm amazed they asked you to shave prior to coming in for surgery seems odd to me. Maybe this is normal but it wasn't how it worked at the clinic I went to. Hopefully when it grows in it all looks good for you, nothing you can do now but wait.

I'm talking about the area close to your sideburn/ear.

Ya I dunno mate, feel free to post the pics you're looking at if you want a 2nd opinion

No one is saying NW0 hairlines become "unnatural by default if you're over 30". Not sure where got the impression that anything of the sort was being said. It's not really as easy as "what aspects of facial structure need to be considered when deciding when a NW0 is appropriate". You can post pictures if you want but there isn't really a checklist of things I can give you. When someone looks unnatural due to cosmetic surgery you can just tell. You are saying you are on Fin already and have been for a while with no side effects? You have no MPB currently or any in your family?

What Dr was this? There was ABSOLUTELY no reason to do any temple point work on you given your minimal loss..... When I had my HT the clinic shaved my donor area at the clinic right before extraction began. At no point did they suggest I shave my head before coming in.

WTF.... You have no arm pit hair anymore? A lot of people are going to come in and say you should get tested for other stuff that might cause that, and they're probably right so you can rule things out. But I think your likely on to something as far as it being caused by fin. People freak out when I say that Fin has a "feminizing effect" on men, but this is another example of that.

That's extremely interesting. Did you have other side effects too? Did you discontinue use or continue on?

It's possible. DHT increases hair growth in every part of the body except the scalp. No one really knows why but the assumption is that there is something genetic within the hair follicles of some people's scalp that makes them susceptible to DHT causing minitarization. But that's kind of a guess on the scientific communities part as far as I understand. It's known as the "DHT paradox". People in the medical community who aren't fully sold on DHT being the main cause of hair loss point to this paradox as evidence sometimes. In your case, it does seem unusual that it would cause a super drastic and noticeable change though. Are you sure your eyes aren't tricking you due to lightning/angle differences and such?

You've missed the point. It isn't that one's facial structure doesn't support any hair if they're balding naturally, it just doesn't usually support NW0. Very few guys after a certain age have a facial structure that does match with a NW0 hairline.