The "some guy" you're referring to gave me a 4/10 troll score because he doesn't want to believe what I'm saying is true, not because what I'm saying isn't true. And some subhuman like you calling me dumb doesn't mean sh!t to me. I have no respect for your intelligence.
Bayer Prolactin Receptor Antibody For Male And Female Pattern Hair Loss
- Thread starter Ollie
- Start date
The "some guy" you're referring to gave me a 4/10 troll score because he doesn't want to believe what I'm saying is true, not because what I'm saying isn't true. And some subhuman like you calling me dumb doesn't mean sh!t to me. I have no respect for your intelligence.
HIs point is sh!t. He's just some guy on the internet talking bullshit. He hasn't proved anything. He hasn't posted one study proving his assertions. He posts stuff that he wants to believe rather than facts.
Last edited:
When he did that one study doesn't tell the whole story. I was talking with Hideo Uno in 1998 & 1999 AND he had done many many studies involving topical treatments on stumptail macaques. The guys who disagree with me here know nothing about the stuff they're talking about and they're just saying the stuff that supports the treatment they hope will work. What the guys here are doing is called confirmation bias.
Last edited:
The fool just says the stuff he wants to believe. He wants to believe that hair growth in macaques is a total barometer for hair growth in humans because the Bayer-treated macaques got great hair growth and he wants to believe he will get the same great results. What he's doing is called confirmation bias where he's stating bullshit because he wants to support the idea that the Bayer drug will grow a lot of hair in humans because that's what he wants to believe.
In fact, it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than humans.
Last edited:
So now you're saying you don't even know for sure if it was tested on macaques before humans. LMAO! You know nothing about the stuff you're blabbing about. You were talking sh!t all long, just like I said you were. And then you say it's "not actually very much less effective on macaques than humans". Prove that it's less effective in macaques than humans. Post studies establishing your bullshit, lizard brain.
Anybody who listens to you is a fool. You have no idea what you're talking about.
And FYI finasteride was, in fact, tested on macaques before humans.
Last edited:
Comment savez-vous que ce truc fonctionnera?
At least I posted a study supporting my posit. You can't even post one study supporting your bs.
And I have to edit my posts so I can add new insults at you, subhuman.
Is it rec
A priori il troll, je pense que personne peut savoir si ça va fonctionner.
I'm sure you can invent some bs reason.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 40
thomps1523
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 298
Noticed this as well. It’s absolutely Nameless! There’s no question in my mind.
IDK who nameless is.
- Reaction score
- 984
does anybody has a theory Why Hope Medicine didnt start Phase II trials in US and Europe as expected?
- Reaction score
- 340
Which other topicals, besides minoxidil, did he find to work better on macaques?
- Reaction score
- 72
I don't think it's a troll anymore, probably mentally ill. Dunno why these forums attract so many
Clearly because they were waiting for the go ahead from Australia but didn't get it. Maybe they will change their plans now and do a US only phase 2 rather than a global one
- Reaction score
- 984
f***
I don't know. I just know that he did a lot of testing for drug companies and he said that overall it was easier to grow hair on macaques.