drupal statistics module

Jump to content


hair loss radio

Photo

Don't Believe All You Read On Forums


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 joe101

joe101

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 314 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 11:43 PM

The admin at Hairlosstalk made this useful post about how you should treat people's opinions with a lot of salt. It's pretty obvious stuff but sometimes we might need reminding tongue.gif

QUOTE
A quick note about opinions that are expressed on this site about hair loss treatments. This website is not like a review site on Home Theater components. Its not as simple as "I bought the product and it worked or didnt work". Everyone needs to remember that opinions expressed here are not only anonymous, they are undocumented, unverifiable, and *heavily* influenced by things that don't even come close to actual "data". If someone says "X product sucks" or "X product doesnt work", take it with even less than a grain of salt.

Here's why:
There are far too many requirements, and variables in the treatment of hair loss. You don't know who the person is. You don't know how long they were on the treatment. You have no way of knowing whether or not they used the treatment as directed. Do they use it once a day, or twice a day like they should? Are they custom dosing their Propecia at 0.000020342mg every 4 days or are they taking 1mg daily like they're supposed to? Are they using a DHT Inhibitor (maintenance only) while trying to Stimulate New Growth? Is their minds-eye distorting their perception? Are they using Nizoral, or did they forget that all-important component? How old are they? How long have they been losing hair?

Are they rubbing the Rogaine on their head, or on their elbow?



No Checks and Balances
Nobody is around to verify that they took it every day, or twice a day as directed. You never hear about those days they skipped ... or that time they went skiing for 2 weeks and forgot to bring it. They don't mention that Nizoral wasn't added until 8 months into treatment. Meanwhile they put up 8 months worth of negative posts about the treatment. Posts they will never go back and delete. Posts you will see, and mistakenly tally up as more proof it doesn't work. The sheer number of potential errors in this evaluative process is incredible.

Non-Responder or "Product Sucks"?
Even if everything is followed perfectly, to the "T", there will still be a percentage of people who dont respond. That's a reality. Even with the most effective treatments, there is always a group of people that simply will not see results. And it's those people who make the effort to come online and complain. And how can you know if the product doesn't work, or if the person is just a non-responder? That's the point. You can't. Yet another reason why "It didn't work for me" has absolutely no meaning. There's one percentage we know for sure: The dissatisfied users are the ones who complain the loudest, 99% of the time. The 80% who saw results are out living life.

A Bold Declaration
So it is HairlossTalk's position that "Hair Loss User Reviews" are utterly useless. Not because people lie. Not because a reasonable person can't make a reasonable guess about whether a treatment worked for him. He can. But its still only a guess, unless he has photos to prove that it did work. Even then, the results are only relevant to one person. Him. He cannot speak for anyone else. You see, this can go both directions: Even with photos showing amazing results, there may be 99 others who have zero results.

Show Us the Data. Or Ingredients.
That is why reviews mean nothing, and data means everything. And when there is no data, ingredients mean everything. That is why they do controlled studies with thousands of people. In order for an opinion to mean something, you would need documented hair counts, in a 5cm area, by a qualified professional, using a Trichogram, over a period of 12 to 24 months, with hundreds of other people doing the exact same thing.

More Perspective
Whether a treatment "sucks" can not be based on even 400 people (20%) coming online and saying it "sucks". You may think that 400 people (20%) ranting that something "sucks" is pretty much "proof". Wrong. There could be another 1,600 people (80%) who saw success that will never speak up. Keep your perspective. Look at things from the big picture. The potential for something to "suck" is based on the potential for its ingredients to work. Not based on posts you see on a Forum.

Revivogen Sucks!
I always laugh when people say "Im trying "X" unproven product because REVIVOGEN sucks!". Revivogen, the product with the most concentrated solution of topical antiandrogens on planet earth ... and I repeatedly hear how much it "sucks". Among literally hundreds of other unproven products, there isn't a single one out there that comes anywhere close to the "logic" in Revivogen's ingredients. Yet I've been told it sucks more than any other treatment. And why? Because people try it, dont like it, it made their pillow orange, its oily, they couldnt style their hair, it didn't make them feel good. They gave it only 3-6 months to work, saw some shedding and didn't realize it was a good sign, tossed it in the trash.... and voila. "Revivogen Sucks".

Toss a tiny bit of documentation in and guess what...
Few people know that we actually followed 50 Revivogen users for a full year. People we knew were actually buying the stuff and taking it every day. From that group, 80% of those that used it for 6 months or more said they maintained or regrew hair. Among those who used it 6 months or less nearly all of them were dissatisfied with results. Though we did more checks and balances than anyone could ever do with an anonymous forum poster, we still did nowhere near enough. But even a little documentation showed very different results than all these anonymous naysayers with zero documentation. And this rule doesn't just apply to Revivogen. It applies to every treatment.

In Conclusion
Judge a product based on the science behind it. Not on what you've heard about it online. You don't know a thing about the person who is writing. But you can know exactly whats in the product and how probable its ingredients are to treat hair loss.

HLT

Finasteride 1mg

Revita and Nizoral Shampoos

 


#2 Pondle

Pondle

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 491 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 10:35 PM

Some good points there, but I like how he says "show us the data" and then goes on to (seemingly) promote Revivogen. wink.gif

#3 joe101

joe101

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 314 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 11:06 PM

Is there any real evidence that topical antiandrogens are effective? as well as Revivogen I hear people say good things about Spiros. I suppose they haven't been as rigorously trialed as Fin and Minox


Finasteride 1mg

Revita and Nizoral Shampoos

 


#4 Pondle

Pondle

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 491 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 11:43 PM

There was an encouraging study of RU58841 using human hair from balding scalp that was grafted onto mice. However, for some reason this substance was never commercialised - though apparently you can get hold of it from some obscure company in China!? unsure.gif

As for Spiro and the like, these are proven anti-androgens but as far as I'm aware, their effects on male pattern baldness have never been studied.

#5 joe101

joe101

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 314 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:10 AM

no company wants to spend the money to develop RU58841, although I've read some people who say it's brilliant. It can't be that great though, if nobody's prepared to invest in it.

Finasteride 1mg

Revita and Nizoral Shampoos

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users