minox alternatives, need hair growth solutions

[Gizmo]

I thought of giving minox a try but after I read the side effects of wrinkles are permanent here http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact...p?f=46&t=52315 I think I will pass.

so what are the alternatives ?

[Bryan]

NANO is an obvious possibility. It's probably not as strong as minoxidil, but it does have the effect of stimulating hair growth. (Waiting for yet another inevitable and sarcastic reply from Jacob! )

[Jacob]

Most of my replies on this are no longer sarcastic. It is getting sickening how you are able to, all these years, shill for Dr. Proctor and his garbage. You can give no evidence/proof for the claims Dr. Proctor(and yourself) makes on the products themselves or the individual ingreds(the "mysterious ingredients" both of you have cleverly used to try to get ppl more interested should have put Proctor's products on the scam/snake-oil list years ago) and yet you constantly question other products/ingreds/claims and even doctors.

To Gizmo..you could check out procyanidins..as posted in this thread: http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact...64440&start=10 although as I say there it'd maybe make more sense to use a combination product that also contains the pro's. There are plenty of other products out there one could try as well..it's hard to compare to minox as they never seem to have trials etc to make a comparison. Things such as Dermaheal...Dermatopoietin..many plant stem cell containing products..etc.

There's also Stimucap: http://www.in-cosmetics.com/__novadocuments/2614

[Jacob]

AHK Copper Tripeptides have been shown to be as effective as 2% minoxidil, and they also have antifibrotic effects! This is important because fibrosis plays a big role in the balding process.

And there's another with some actual evidence behind 'em.

[Gizmo]

AHK Copper Tripeptides have been shown to be as effective as 2% minoxidil, and they also have antifibrotic effects! This is important because fibrosis plays a big role in the balding process.

I understand AHK Copper Tripeptides is the active ingredient in Tricomin (and Folligen) - am I right? so we are talking about Tricomin Shampoo ?

NANO is an obvious possibility. It's probably not as strong as minoxidil, but it does have the effect of stimulating hair growth. (Waiting for yet another inevitable and sarcastic reply from Jacob! )

Bryan:
I couldn't find NANO shampoo on this site. I DID find it elsewhere.
this is not a good sign.

can you please explain why NANO is better than Tricomin or other?

[Bryan]

Bryan:
I couldn't find NANO shampoo on this site.

You couldn't find NANO shampoo on WHAT site??

I DID find it elsewhere.
this is not a good sign.

Why not? Dr. Proctor's products are sold in only a few locations; the LEF (Life Extension Foundation) is probably the best.

can you please explain why NANO is better than Tricomin or other?

I don't understand your question. Are you talking about NANO shampoo, and comparing it to Tricomin lotion? Or are you talking about Tricomin shampoo? Please explain what it is you're talking about.

[Gizmo]

NANO is an obvious possibility. It's probably not as strong as minoxidil, but it does have the effect of stimulating hair growth. (Waiting for yet another inevitable and sarcastic reply from Jacob! )

when you say "NANO" you mean the "NANO shampoo" by Dr. Proctor, right ? the one listed here: http://www.drproctor.com/hair-regrowth-products.htm ?

my question is: why do believe that NANO is the obvious possibility (as you state) and not any of the products listed here: http://www.hairlosstalk.com/shop/growth ... ?limit=all

[Jacob]

The LEF version is watered down....so it makes perfect sense that it's the best

It doesn't matter if it's the Tricomin shampoo or topical that you're talking about. There is no evidence out there that NANO is the "obvious" choice. He says that about any of the Proctor products when he has the opportunity to push them. There is no evidence to support the claims. Even the before/afters are worthless.

[Bryan]

when you say "NANO" you mean the "NANO shampoo" by Dr. Proctor, right ? the one listed here: http://www.drproctor.com/hair-regrowth-products.htm ?

Yes, I mean NANO shampoo. (Although NANO is also an ingredient in Dr. Proctor's main products Proxiphen and Prox-N!)

my question is: why do believe that NANO is the obvious possibility (as you state) and not any of the products listed here: http://www.hairlosstalk.com/shop/growth ... ?limit=all

NANO shampoo is an obvious possibility for the simple reason that there are very few medicated shampoos that actually do anything to treat MPB. Nizoral shampoo is one, NANO shampoo is another.

Out of all the products on that page you cited, the only shampoo I see is one that's part of that collection of products associated with Tricomin (you appeared to be talking specifically about shampoo in your first post in this thread). BTW, I'm not particularly impressed with Tricomin shampoo! I doubt that it has enough active ingredients to do anything. I suspect it was simply included in the product line associated with Tricomin, just for the sake of completeness.

So picking a decent shampoo for our specific purpose (treating our hair loss) is simple and obvious: there's Nizoral, and there's NANO.

[Jacob]

my question is: why do believe that NANO is the obvious possibility (as you state) and not any of the products listed here: http://www.hairlosstalk.com/shop/growth ... ?limit=all

NANO shampoo is an obvious possibility for the simple reason that there are very few medicated shampoos that actually do anything to treat MPB. Nizoral shampoo is one, NANO shampoo is another.

Out of all the products on that page you cited, the only shampoo I see is one that's part of that collection of products associated with Tricomin (you appeared to be talking specifically about shampoo in your first post in this thread). BTW, I'm not particularly impressed with Tricomin shampoo! I doubt that it has enough active ingredients to do anything. I suspect it was simply included in the product line associated with Tricomin, just for the sake of completeness.

So picking a decent shampoo for our specific purpose (treating our hair loss) is simple and obvious: there's Nizoral, and there's NANO.

Except there's no evidence that "NANO shampoo is another". There's nothing "obvious" about listing it along with something like Nizoral. Or even saying it's the "obvious" at all..when suggesting a shampoo.

Even if there were evidence for "NANO"...you could question if that shampoo too has enough active ingredients to do anything. A watered-down version or not.