Robert_

Take it at face value, but I recently heard radio spots sponsored by Aderan's (owned by Bosley...or now owns Bosley...I can't remember) here in Atlanta wanting people to come in to participate in clinical trials. After looking around, it appears to be phase II. And in case anyone asks, NO I didn't sign up. I just heard the spot and listened with interest. I'm excited for the future of this technology, but after I had the very awesome opportunity to speak at length with more than one hair restoration physician about it, I am willing to be patient... Remember that hair multiplication (or hair cloning, or whatever the "hot" term for it is these days) isn't going to be a magic wand that will erase hair loss. The grafts still have to be placed with meticulously-skilled artistry and a million-and-one other variables have to be taken into consideration to ensure a successful procedure. I certainly don't want to throw dark clouds on anyone's horizon or anything, though. The future's never looked brighter for us would-be "chrome-domes!" But I guess what I'm trying to say is utilize the treatments that are available right now to salvage what you have *(barring any conditions that keep you from doing so, of course). -Robert

Interesting thread. I know its my own fault, but I've been out of the loop for a while so I won't even speculate on TheEmperor's first post. (I do need to get back over here and contribute again, I know) But I haven't been so out of the loop to know that the same physicians that I recommended to forum posters back when I was the moderator are the same that I'd recommend to my closest family members to this day. Your list: "Cooley, Shapiro, Epstein, Hasson, and Charles" Though I'm curious as to why Wong isn't on there, (it may just be your personal preference in his approach) I will say that if I was to go back in the chair at this exact minute, I wouldn't hesitate to consult with any one of those docs and discuss a plan of action that enabled me to safely and effectively obtain my goals. Now, as some of the other posters pointed out, lots of people have their "top 5" or "top 10" or whatever. I think that's an interesting way to look at it (especially now that football season is back). This is why: hair restoration surgery is EVERY BIT as much as an art as it is medicinal practice. Naturally, some docs are going to apply their brush to the canvas with their own style - their own finesse. I really do believe that it's because of this that some people draw their favorites. It's human nature. The bottom line is your safety during and after the procedure and your appearance after the transplant has matured. Would I trust every one of these docs to work on me? You bet I would. Every one of them is HIGHLY dedicated to their craft and every one of them have publicly displayed their results in exaggerated detail time and time again for years. So, in my opinion, the choice is yours now to figure out if you want a Porsche, a Bentley, or a Ferrari. Comparing your head to a fine automobile really isn't that much of a stretch as an analogy when you start to really study the painstaking attention-to-detail that each of these physicians commit themselves to every day. Oh, and I may sound like a cheerleader but trust me, I'm not. If you had a doc up there that I had any reservation about it, I'll tell you flat out. Oh, and finally, if you didn't already know, I've had two procedures by Dr. Cooley and no one else and I'm not only still happy, I'm ecstatic. Seriously, Dr. Cooley, Ailene and the staff at Carolina Dermatology gave me my 20's back. If I was to ever go back (no plans at all at the moment and don't foresee it any time remotely soon) it would be back to Dr. Cooley. I guess what I'm saying is that you've narrowed it down to five great docs. Study as much information on each of them and check out every available results photo that you can find (there are a TON around here somewhere, I'll look around and see if I can remember my way around ). You'll begin to be able to recognize the individual physicians' artistry after a while if you look long enough. I know this for a fact because I've studied more hair restoration photos than any sane person should. Got any more questions, post em. I'll pop back in and help you out if you'd like. -Robert

Yeah, man. Dermmatch is addicting. I still use it about once a week (usually on Fridays) when I want that "really thick" look.

I used Dermatch pretty regularly during the 4 to 6 month mark, but I applied it sparingly to the hairline (where my HT was concentrated). Get your doc' advice if you're very concerned but it shouldn't be a problem as long as you don't use it excessively.

I know that feeling. I was nervous and excited. Believe it or not, the morning of the procedure you're likely to much more calm and relaxed (even more so when you take the Valium ) Who are you going to, EmuSteve? -Robert

Just try and guess who I really am. Hint: the answer will BLOW YOUR MIND! <span class="ev_code_RED">MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!</span> -Robert (or...am I?)

I can't speak about any of the other forums or online resources but I know for a fact that the publisher (Pat) and moderator of this forum are genuine and always keep the best interests of the hair loss sufferers in mind.

I believe that my "hair loss weblog" (in my sig) has a pretty good timeline of what I looked like during the days and weeks following my HT. Here's a couple of pictures of me at two weeks post-op . I am a fairly quick healer and had the benefit of the extraordinarily talented Dr. Cooley as my physician so every one else's mileage may vary, of course. -Robert

Smoking constricts the nourishment-supplying blood vessels that supply the hair roots, thus perpetuating the damage already being done by DHT. Basically, if you are already prone to hair loss, smoking probably helps accelerate it.

That's fine, Bill. It probably wasn't necessary for me to go that far, anyway. I guess I spoke a bit harshly and I don't want to run the risk of this forum being liable for me doing something like that. If he's smart he'll find somewhere else to spam from now on.

And in case you try to deny that your presence on these forums is for anything other than spam, here is the proof: Posted by HiFiHiFi68: "Without getting into the song and dance of how you build up traffic based on content, longevity, hard work etc., which I already know, are there any actual services that work and will increase your traffic and clicks? The answer may be no and I'll accept that. But if there are, I'd appreciate some referral links & not from people who have these websites services! Basically, unless I see online independent reviews of these services and like what I see, I won't join any. I've already seen a few via my Google Search that sound "Hokey". And yes, to reiterate,I realize there are no shortcuts to success but I'm also open to the concept that there are some shortcuts that when added with other shortcuts, help one get successful. Reply With Quote" And here is the reply from some other newbie webmaster that you obviously adhered to: Posted by Spanner: I would find forums similar to your topic and start posting there with your site in the sig. Adsense Help - Are There Any Internet Services That Actually Do Gain You Traffic & thus Clicks? Here's where you were asking the same question on the most retarded webmaster forum in existence. Here's a head's up: Digital Point is the epitome of the blind leading the blind. Are There Any Internet Services That Actually Do Gain You Traffic & thus Clicks? You are, without a doubt, the single worst spammer I have ever seen. I mean, I don't think that someone TRYING to be bad at spamming could get any worse than you. Oh, and once again: Have a nice day! -Robert

Hey HiFiHiFi, On your site it says: "...please check out & click (but don't overdo) any of the Google ads..." As you undoubtedly know, this is a direct violation of the Google Adsense Terms of Service and well enough of an offense to get you booted from the program. In case you're actually so inept that you are unaware of this stipulation of the Google TOS, here's the applicable snippet and URL: You shall not, and shall not authorize or encourage any third party to: (i) directly or indirectly generate queries, Referral Events, or impressions of or clicks on any Ad, Link, Search Result, or Referral Button through any automated, deceptive, fraudulent or other invalid means, including but not limited to through repeated manual clicks, the use of robots or other automated query tools and/or computer generated search requests, and/or the unauthorized use of other search engine optimization services and/or software; Google Adsense Terms and Conditions Your motivation to utilize these forums to drive traffic to your extremely rudimentary website is so transparent that it would be comical if it wasn't so offensive. Don't bother changing it to avoid detection. I've already taken the liberty of submitting a screenshot of the offense to Google because, well, I don't like people spamming these forums. Additionally, GoDaddy will be interested in your spamming nature on these forums as well. Expect a few emails from both of these companies. Spam anywhere else but not here. Have a nice day! -Robert

No, I'm not saying that Avodart is better than Propecia at all. In my post I was explaining what the report from the Las Vegas meeting notes have further confirmed: extensive research has proven that Avodart is a much more potent medication and inhibits much more type 2 alpha-reductase as well as type 1. It is because of this that I choose to take Avodart. However, I have never suggested that anyone else to take it because it is not FDA-approved for the treatment of male-pattern baldness and because of the unknown role of type 1 alpha-reductase has on the brain, as Bill pointed out. Anyone considering adding Avodart to their regimen should research the drug as much as possible and talk to their doctor about it first. I really mean that last part, guys: TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR. -Robert

nanogen-guy, I'm a big fan of nanogen myself, but I found that the differences between the two are very small. You can check out my full review here: Nanogen Review

The only thing I have to understand is that your company has officially absolved itself of any liability from the use of the potentially tainted medication that they sell with their disclaimer. If you're only a customer then how would you know what they do and don't stand behind? Is your company so inept to see that sending a liar to stick up for them on forums will only further hurt their reputation?

New names, same ol' drama.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Great post, bud.

Then go ask him why he isn't showing you his head. It was only speculation on my part anyway. That's not what I said at all. Because the webmaster chose to go to a particular physician, the site's visitors may believe that he believes that physician is somehow better than the other physicians that advertise on his site. That, in turn, can become bad for business as the other doctors may feel slighted. Like I said, that's my speculation and what I believe to be a reasonable one based on the circumstances. You seem to believe I'm some kind of crony for "that forum," or something. Nothing can be further from the truth. For all I know, the guy would just rather not show his head or face online. I don't know who "A" is and don't care. And there is enough "objective evidence" from every hair restoration physician that has a strong online presence. If there isn't enough for your liking, then just email the clinic and ask for more "before/after"s or better yet, talk to their patients personally. More power to you. I haven't even looked at "that" forum in over a year. I couldn't care less about the drama that happens there and I'm sure that many of the forum members here feel the same way. As a matter of fact, if having a website owner be completely transparent and open about his procedures is what you want, then check out Pat's Weblog .

My guess is that he is actually keeping his own results private because he fears that if his results were good then he would be attacked for promoting that one physician over the others that advertise on his forum. He's looking out for them as well as his own revenue. Nothing too shady about that, IMO. He's just trying to keep everyone's interests in mind. I don't know who you are talking about, especially since I don't go to any other hair loss forums but I have an idea of who it may be. And if it is the person and forum who I think it is, I always have to question why its members enjoy bashing this forum until he does something to raise a fuss or until they feel slighted. Then they run over to this forum to get opinions, start controversy, etc. It seems to happen every few months or so.

I wouldn't hesitate one second. Dr. Cooley literally changed my life. No "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about it.

Blow-drying the areas that have been applied work best for me. I also try to remove as much excess as possible before I blow dry. It's all right there in the thread that Bill posted. Hairspray works like a charm too. Not too much, though. You don't want helmet hair.

You're an idiot and a dangerous addition to this community. I'm notifying Pat of this post and hopefully he will edit it or take it down. If someone has legitimate side effects from any prescription drug they should discontinue use immediately and contact their physician, NOT order illegal substances from God-knows-where online from a 20 year old fear mongerer that has an obvious agenda and is full of conspiracy theories.

I would never attempt to use either Dermmatch or Toppik after using conventional Rogaine lotion. That would just be a greasy mess even if you waited until after it was dry. However, with the foam I think you would be ok after an hour, hour and a half or so. -Robert

Nizoral study is posted here --> Nizoral Study Conclusion: Hair density and size and proportion of anagen follicles were improved almost similarly by both KCZ and minoxidil regimens. Cheers, Sin Thanks for digging that up, Sin. But I'm not the one that requested it, that was all rp1979. Regards, Robert

Here we go again. There's always someone that truly believes that I post observations on here just to make their life miserable. You caught me, rp1979. I specifically made that post just so you wouldn't know the extraordinary benefits of Revivogen. Anyway, to address your concerns in a more serious tone, OK, I've been away for a little while, but last I heard GSK never released the dutasteride studies to the public so no one actually KNOWS the results and why they never brought it to market as a hair loss medication. I can say I KNOW that it works because I've been using it for years, but I've never seen the actual studies other than a few small, independent ones. Do you know of some that I don't? Who said that? If you want to slather yourself in Revivogen and roam the streets then go ahead for all I care. However, until I see more than the mild anecdotal evidence that says that it works, I'm not going to recommend it in good conscious. The key word in my sentence is "seems." Perhaps I should have bolded it? The truth is, I was just as hopeful about it as you seem to be. The company's behavior and the experience of way too many hair loss sufferers let me down, however. After years of trying this stuff, the only success stories that I've heard about have been from guys using other treatments (mainly Propecia or Avodart) in conjunction with the Revivogen. Now, admittedly that's not a scientific way to make an analysis but after several years of being on the market wouldn't SOMEONE be sharing success stories with Revivogen alone if it actually worked? Haha. So true. The entire reason that I emailed them was that they were saying that Nioxin (not specifically the Nioxin pills) would increase hair loss. Bottom line, they were leading the guy to believe that Nioxin shampoo and conditioner was going to increase his hair loss. The statement was predatory and borderline libelous. Whether you agree or not is up to you, but I sure wouldn't want to be told a half truth like that. So why did you, Robert_, said that: "The thing about Revivogen is, that the science really backs the product up. It really should work well as a topical DHT-inhibitor. I have heard of success stories, but nothing really overwhelming." Because the science DOES back it up. However, the Revivogen product just seems to be lacking an adequate dose or chemical balance. I dunno, I haven't gotten around to testing it in my mad scientist lab I keep in my bathroom yet. Why not? I expect SOME results of whatever I'm using. True, if it slows down hair loss then it is working. But how do you know that it's slowing your hair loss? If you are having success with Revivogen then PLEASE let everyone know. I'm not so prideful that I wouldn't love to be proven wrong if the product actually worked. You act like it's my job to keep bald men bald. Sheesh. You're right. The studies are right under your nose and it seems that you're the one that isn't taking the time to look. So I took the time for you, as requested: <LI> Reversal of androgenetic alopecia by topical ketoconzole: relevance of anti-androgenic activity. The six Japanese males from 23 to 51 years old were enrolled in this study with their written informed consent. They presented with grade II vertex to IVa AGA according to the Hamilton??“Norwood classification [4]. The subjects applied topical 2% KCZ lotion (Nizoral?®) almost every day during or immediately after hair washing with their own unmedicated shampoos. When they revisited our clinic every several months, clinical pictures were obtained to determine the efficacy of the treatment. Two of the men, one 23 years old with grade II vertex and the other 25 years old with Va AGA, showed remarkable hair regrowth after 6 and 10 months, respectively (Fig. 1). The 23-year-old male stopped using KCZ and 3 months later hair loss recurrence on the vertex was noted (Fig. 1c). When he started using KCZ again during shampooing, hairs on the vertex grew again after 3 months (Fig. 1d). These findings constitute evidence of the clinical efficacy of KCZ for AGA. A 41-year-old male showed a slight increase in vertex hair growth after 1 year. Other three of the men, 31, 38 and 51 years old did not show significant improvement. These findings suggest that topical KCZ with shampoo can be effective for some males with AGA. Fig. 1. A 23-year-old Japanese man who used 2% ketoconazole (KCZ) lotion during shampooing everyday. Six months later, hair regrowth was attained (b) in comparison with the pre-treatment condition (a). Suspension of use for 3 months, however, caused recurrent hair loss ©. Renewed use of KCZ induced renewed growth of vertex hair (d). A 25-year-old Japanese man with AGA (e) applied 2% KCZ lotion immediately after shampooing everyday. Ten months later, hair regrowth was apparent (f). <LI> Topical application of ketoconazole stimulates hair growth in C3H/HeN mice. Ketoconazole (KCZ) is an imidazole anti-fungal agent that is also effective in topical applications for treating seborrheic dermatitis and dandruff. Recently, topical use of 2% KCZ shampoo has been reported to have had a clinically therapeutic effect on androgenetic alopecia. The present study was conducted with the purpose of quantitatively examining the stimulatory effect of KCZ on hair growth in a mouse model. Coat hairs on the dorsal skin of seven week-old male C3H/HeN mice were gently clipped, and either 2% KCZ solution in 95% ethanol or a vehicle solution was topically applied once daily for three weeks. The clipped area was photographed, and the ratio of re-grown coat area was then calculated. The results demonstrated that 2% KCZ had a macroscopically significant stimulatory effect compared with the vehicle group (p<0.01, n=10). Repeated experiments showed similar effects, confirming the efficacy of KCZ as a hair growth stimulant. Although the therapeutic mechanism of topical KCZ for hair growth is unclear, our results suggest that topical applications of the substance are useful for treating seborrheic dermatitis accompanied by hair regression or male pattern hair loss. <LI> Ketocazole as an adjunct to finasteride in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia in men Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) binding to androgen receptors (AR) in hair follicles is commonly accepted as the first step leading to the miniaturizing of follicles associated with androgenetic alopecia (AGA). Testosterone is converted to DHT by the enzyme 5alpha-reductase. Finasateride a 5alpha-reducase inhibitor blocks the production of DHT and is currently used to treat AGA. The inhibition is not complete but a reduction of DHT systemically and in the scalp is accomplished. Ketoconazole has been clinically shown to be effective in the treatment of AGA. In this paper, evidence is presented to support the hypothesis that ketoconazole 2% shampoo has a local disruption of the DHT pathway. It is proposed that using ketoconazole 2% shampoo as an adjunct to finasteride treatment could lead to a more complete inhibition of DHT and thus better treat AGA. <LI> Comparative efficacy of various treatment regimens for androgenetic alopecia in men. Our understanding of the aetiology of androgenetic alopecia (AGA) has substantially increased in recent years. As a result, several treatment modalities have been tried with promising results especially in early stages of AGA. However, as far as has been ascertained, there is no comprehensive study comparing the efficacy of these agents alone and in combination with each other. One hundered male patients with AGA of Hamilton grades II to IV were enrolled in an open, randomized, parallel-group study, designed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of oral finasteride (1 mg per day), topical 2% minoxidil solution and topical 2% ketoconazole shampoo alone and in combination. They were randomized into four groups. Group I (30 patients) was administered oral finasteride, Group II (36 patients) was given a combination of finasteride and topical minoxidil, Group III (24 patients) applied minoxidil alone and Group IV (10 patients) was administered finasteride with topical ketoconazole. Treatment efficacy was assessed on the basis of patient and physician assessment scores and global photographic review during the study period of one year. At the end of one year, hair growth was observed in all the groups with best results recorded with a combination of finasteride and minoxidil (Group II) followed by groups IV, I and III. Subjects receiving finasteride alone or in combination with minoxidil or ketoconazole showed statistically significant improvement (p<0.05) over minoxidil only recipients. No signifcant side-effects related to the drugs were observed. In conclusion, it is inferred that the therapeutic efficacy is enhanced by combining the two drugs acting on different aetiological aspects of AGA. You can't access many of them without a password, but that should be enough for you to take a look at. Sure, if they don't work. But I didn't call anything a "scam." I'm just stating my interpretations of what I've observed. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything and I don't appreciate the insinuation. If you'd rather not read my posts then fine, don't read them. If you have evidence to support a contradictory argument to what I've posted, then please feel free to post that. However, don't assume that just because you don't like what is said it's not true. We're all a little too adult to know that's not how the world works. -Robert