FUEtile

Are you in the UK I got hims

10000% yes

Rob English scalp massage 🤣

Thailand has some good options 

I can see a difference there’s more hair between the strands

Nah CosmeRNA is Korean company. 

Any update on the podcast?

The video titles are a bit much but damn he’s got skill. 

On 8/16/2023 at 2:30 AM, arthurSam said:

New problem with CosmeRNA :

 

 

I mean is that a big problem? It’s 0.4 difference. I guarantee most companies do this. Even protein powders come half empty. This company is attacked a lot. 

HT without fin is not a good idea

2 hours ago, olmert said:

1. This is the disadvantage of videos instead of writings. The speaker is vague, and might not mean exactly what he appears to say. He uses the word "combination," and then he throws in the kitchen sink. I don't think he really means you should take oral and topical minoxidil at the same time. I have never heard any doctor say to take both. 

2. What is the best topical anti androgen? 

 

CosmeRNA

This guys a clown downplays finasteride side effects, but but but stay away from the big bad minoxidil 

4 minutes ago, shiba1985 said:

isnt pyrilutamide allready avaliable through compounding. I dont know what is so earth shattering about using an anti androgen to treat male pattern baldness. Obviously it will work, but brings all the risks on blocking androgen with it. 

 

Please correct me if i am wrong

It’s supposed to not cause the same sides cuz it’s not stopping DHT it’s blocking the androgen receptors 

Theres been a bunch of hype on cosmeRNA but I think pyrilutamide is gonna be a safer bet

https://en.kintor.com.cn/news/245.html

Waste of money

Wasn’t this supposed to be released here in the UK this month? 

Just now, BurnieBurns said:

No significantly weaker than fin.

Coulsnt stableise with it as a monotherapy but used it as part of 

a stack with others

You think combining fluridil with topical fin would be best? What about RU? 

20 minutes ago, BurnieBurns said:

 

Depends how aggresive your loss is

What’s your experience? Would you say it’s as strong as topical fin? 

2 minutes ago, consequence said:

I looked through all of the peer reviewed medical literature to date and was underwhelmed by sample sizes and effect profiles.

Topicals are a massive waste of time and the next in a long line of hair fads. They are inconsistent in preparation and effect. People are free to try what they wish but that is my opinion after careful review of the literature. Spend some time on Pubmed not just arguing in an echo chamber.

I'm not going to get lost in the weeds with you as this thread is a total crap show already and you're clearly not open to reasonable discussion. 

I don’t think this is an echo chamber at all. I don’t disagree with you. The sample size of the study is small. You should post some of the data you’ve researched. I’m basing my thoughts off the study posted here. But if you have some studies that would refute it, post them. That’s the whole point of this discussion. It’s not to validate our biases. Its to get actual information. 

3 minutes ago, consequence said:

The data on topicals is very weak right now, still too new to know if it has effect. Plus, in the United States at least, you are relying on compounding pharmacies which have little to no federal oversight, so you don't know if the dose you're getting is consistent each time. Also the amount of testosterone converted to DHT in the liver and prostate vs locally in the skin varies massively, especially as an individual ages.

It probably has some effect. Will it be as consistent or as effective as oral medication? Not with current shot in the dark approaches. Several decades of research will be needed before there's even a chance of that. Also the closer it gets to oral medication in effectiveness, the more that is probably being absorbed systemically to get to the prostate and liver, meaning the side effects will be the same.

Generally a waste of time.

The study OP posted debunks this is there any other evidence or studies that help your argument or are you speculating?

4 hours ago, NikosHair said:

The only thing the study can tell us is the more you reduce DHT, the more hair you grow

This is what you literally said here ^

6 minutes ago, NikosHair said:

No contradiction - the efficacy for topical was less. Similar but less. This raises an interesting question that was discussed earlier in this thread. Could 1mg be overkill? That makes an interesting case for micro-dosing oral fin.

You're making the assumption the efficacy vs DHT reduction is linear. That's not what I said. (see above).

See above thats what you said. 

Side effects were statistically similar is not what you want to read if you're hoping topicals are the solution.

You’re looking at it from face value. You have to take into account the overall population. I would imagine there’s millions. If everyone switched to topical the number of fewer reported side effects would be in the tens of thousands. Not an insignificant number. 

You need to understand why 'statistical significance' is significant. The difference was so small that the researcher could not eliminate the possibility the difference was purely due to 'chance'.

(see above) 

To emphasize the point, 2.8% of the placebo group reported side effects ... They didn't even get any drug! (again, this was highlighted earlier in the thread).

The only thing this proves is nocebo is a real thing. 

Agreed.

I specifically referenced fancy marketing in the question. If you want a discussion purely on effectiveness or safety you can create your own question in your own poll😉

Your disdain for “marketing” is clouding your objectivity. 

'Possible' isn't acceptable if you sell a topical product that claims to grow hair by reducing DHT locally in the scalp. It can be tested very simply (described earlier in this thread) but the companies producing the topicals do not produce the results. I say that's unacceptable and perhaps they have results that don't support their product🙄

It doesn’t really matter the facts are that the efficacy was very similar to oral finasteride while systemic reduction was a 20+% difference. Your entire argument is based on this simple fact which refuted your point.

I appreciate you're late to the thread but this stuff has been covered earlier. Give topicals a try and let the community know how you get on👍

I’ll definitely be giving them a try.

Did you test your hormone levels? I can’t see how 3 applications would make a difference 

2 minutes ago, mustang said:

Concentration and delivery vehicle has nothing to do with packaging.

These bottles are compounded by pharmacies in an artisan way. They just dissolved the active compound on whatever vehicle the client asks.

Liposomes are proven to be more effective therefor allowing lower concentrations.

 

Can you expand a bit more? 

2 hours ago, NikosHair said:

For topical, the results were less, the sides were less, and the serum DHT reduction was less (Patients showed higher DHT levels in the topical cohort Vs oral fin).

The only thing the study can tell us is the more you reduce DHT, the more hair you grow and the greater the potential for sides. Nothing we don't already know. 

Critically, it only demonstrated rubbing stuff on your head was just another method to get the drug in the bloodstream, albeit a less effective way than taking low-dose oral fin. 

The study you posted debunks this theory. Based on your assumption less systemic DHT reduction should equal less efficacy. But that contradicts what was observed in the study. 

There’s over a 20% difference in systemic reduction between topical and oral. So, if what you’re saying is true, there should be a 20% higher efficacy rate with oral finasteride. Because more DHT reduction = higher efficacy. But that is not what the study says.

Topical and oral finasteride is numerically similar in terms of hair growth (efficacy), despite there being a 20+% difference in DHT reduction. 
 

Even the own study had this conclusion 

None of your points have any solid foundation. 
 

To summarize your points: 

Oral finasteride and topical have similar side effects profile. Statistically similar but there’s still over a 1% difference in sexual side effects. Stats mean nothing to individuals. 1% of 100,000 is 1,000 so the more users the higher the number. What may seem insignificant isn’t when you look at it deeper.

Oral finasteride is cheaper and you can microdose. There are no studies comparing microdosing finasteride and taking 1mg daily. So this point is inconclusive. But worth exploring. 

Topical companies rip you off by selling subscriptions. This point doesn’t have anything to do with effectiveness or safety. But even from a monetary standpoint. Topical finasteride is sold by several companies that are not expensive and don’t do subscriptions, and you can DIY your own topical. Making the cost only marginally more expensive than the oral version. Moot point.

The more DHT the higher the efficacy. On paper this makes sense but this study contradicts this theory. It’s possible that applying the drug topically reaches DHT at the hair follicle level making it similar in efficacy as consuming it orally. There are no studies proving this but this speculation makes more sense to me based on this study. 

17 hours ago, NikosHair said:

I haven't seen any studies that count hairs on micro-dosing. Studies are often funded by pharma companies and there just isn't any money in the micro-dosing results.

If you go down the super cheap micro dosing route you can try crushing a 1mg pill and mix it with a filler eg. microcrystalline cellulose. Then cap it (gelatine capsules). 

Thats an issue for me with the study you posted you can see the comparison between oral and topical. Efficacy was close and sides were reported less. That makes topical finasteride worth a try. You can even DIY your own topical so all the business stuff is irrelevant. 
 

I vote no