mvpsoft said:
You previously asked for precise statistics involving posters on here who reported success or lack thereof. Precise stats regarding those kinds of anecdotal reports are meaningless because the sample is not scientific, nor is it random, nor is it representative of the population at large which has tried those treatments. Nor do we know whether those users have used the treatments the recommended ways or the recommended length of times. In short, stats about anecdotal accounts are useless for drawing meaningful conclusions.
I couldn't have said it better myself. This has been the age old logic used by armchair scientists. Somewhere along the line someone decided that anonymous online posts equate to controlled studies. The innacuracy of this is monumental. Just to *qualify* for a hair loss study is difficult, if not impossible, simply because of the requirements for inclusion. Type of loss, area of loss, extent of loss, current products being used, products used in the last 12 months, etc. etc. etc. Thats just to gain entrance! This doesn't include the minimum 12 months of duration, and preferred 24 months duration of using one, and ONLY one product. This doesn't include baseline photographs and baseline HAIR COUNTS in a specific area of the head which are monitored on a monthly basis for change by an external source. It goes on and on.
Scientists and researchers don't go to this detail just because they love to do extra work. They realized there are so many variables that come into play, that they simply could NOT make a claim about a product without documenting all of these things. And neither can we. Surely not from anonymous posters online.
Taking pictures with a disposable or even digital camera held at arms length in the bathroom mirror are good for overal visual assessment of long term change or maintenance, but there is too much information missing to take that photo and assign it to a specific product. Sure, we can make some assumptions. We can make some general assessments based on what the person says. If we couldn't these forums would be useless. But I don't think anyone can take a tested product like Copper Peptides and make a contradictory global claim that they "dont work" and use anonymous online forum posts as his evidence.
That's like telling Christopher Columbus that the earth is flat because you're still in England and you still see that the earth ends at the horizon.
Add into the equation the fact that hair counts go up and down on their own with the various hair cycles, completely void of any treatments, and you realize why forum pictures arent foolproof.
Taking this a step further ... Freud ... you've implied that you've seen "more people NOT have results with copper peptides". And then you stated that people on forums today are documenting things in a very detailed manner with digital images. Exactly how many of the copper peptide users with zero results were only using Tricomin and nothing else, for at least 12 to 24 months, and took highly focused detailed digital images on a 3 to 6 month basis? Zero? How many of them were just text feedback from someone you dont know nor met and were probably using other products? 95%? How many had blurry photos taken in the bathroom mirror? Probably the other 5%.
Your point is well taken, but detailed tracking is rare on hair loss forums. Even if it were common, researchers have already well established that there need to be controls put into place to override any doubt that the many variables bring into the equation. We cant just ignore those and imply that pictures are sufficient.
HairLossTalk.com
