Blocking 100% of DHT

[Bryan]

Bryan,

I am aware DHT inhibitors, DHT Blockers, DHT I & DHT II are inaccurate expressions...that was my point in posting.

Ok, but nothing in your post suggested to me that was the case. I took it at face value.

Bryan, that was his implication when he said, "I don't think a topical DHT inhibitor exists. Topical Anti-Androgen?" However, I initially interpreted it the same way you did. It was only after his response to you that his intended meaning was apparent to me.

Dave, I still don't really get what he means. Those two sentences of his which you quoted above seem completely out of context from the rest of his post. :unsure:

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Bryan,

I think everyone appreciates the fact that you are extremely well-read on the subject of hair-loss/male pattern baldness and it's treatment but you do not seem to be able to appreciate that not everyone is as well-read or as intelligent as yourself.

You seem to actually get quite angry about very little things.

Maybe you need a little holiday away from all the hair-loss research?

You know, it's funny how "little things" can eventually really get under your skin, if they keep going on and on and on and on and on and.... Sort of like how a steady drip-drip-drip from a leaky faucet seems harmless enough, but if it continues long enough and you can't get it fixed and you hear it 24 hours a day, even while you're lying in bed trying to get to sleep, it may eventually drive you completely bonkers.

Similar to that is having to explain a gazillion times to both newbies and people who should know better (like "Uglyman4life" on HLH) that no, finasteride for hairloss was NOT an "accidental discovery" by Merck scientists!

You're right: I need to take a couple of months off and go cavort with topless French girls on the beach at Saint-Tropez.

Bryan

 

[Old Baldy]

No, no Bryan. It's good to want concise language. It gets to the point better. It's just harder for newbies like myself to be as concise as I would like to be. Your corrections, however, improve my postings because I try to pay attention to every word I write.

Don't think your corrections or "confusions" are not helpful. I wouldn't like it if you failed to (1) review posts closely and (2) base your response on what EXACTLY was written.

I mean what else can someone really go on? It helps us to better understand the intricacies of male pattern baldness IMHO.

(For example, I edited this SIMPLE post about 3 friggin' times to get it to reflect what I meant! )

 

[Chujgcha]

Bryan,

I am aware DHT inhibitors, DHT Blockers, DHT I & DHT II are inaccurate expressions...that was my point in posting.

Ok, but nothing in your post suggested to me that was the case. I took it at face value.

Bryan, that was his implication when he said, "I don't think a topical DHT inhibitor exists. Topical Anti-Androgen?" However, I initially interpreted it the same way you did. It was only after his response to you that his intended meaning was apparent to me.

Dave, I still don't really get what he means. Those two sentences of his which you quoted above seem completely out of context from the rest of his post. :unsure:

Bryan

Go back and read my post along with the quote from fnarr. I'm obviously correcting fnarr on two different points. "Pendantry to the nth degree." He said finasteride doesn't inhibit type I 5ar. I corrected him on that point. Then I said i don't think a topical dht inhibitor exist. Translation: "buddy, I don't think a topical dht inhibitor exist. Did you mean topical antiandrogens?"

If you wanted to flame somebody, it should have been fnarr and Def.

Dont loose you're hare over grandmatical arrows in this post.

Chuj

 

[Dave001]

Bryan,

I am aware DHT inhibitors, DHT Blockers, DHT I & DHT II are inaccurate expressions...that was my point in posting.

Ok, but nothing in your post suggested to me that was the case. I took it at face value.

Bryan, that was his implication when he said, "I don't think a topical DHT inhibitor exists. Topical Anti-Androgen?" However, I initially interpreted it the same way you did. It was only after his response to you that his intended meaning was apparent to me.

Dave, I still don't really get what he means. Those two sentences of his which you quoted above seem completely out of context from the rest of his post. :unsure:

I'll translate what I quoted according to my interpretation from reading it the second time. I could be wrong. I chose to take his word about their meaning.

"I don't think a topical DHT inhibitor exists."
Because "DHT inhibitor" does not make any sense, one cannot exist (the sentence is sarcastic).

"Topical Anti-Androgen?"
Perhaps you instead meant to say antiandrogen?

Now are we clear?

 

[Dave001]

Bryan,

[...]

You seem to actually get quite angry about very little things.

Maybe you need a little holiday away from all the hair-loss research?

Sorry, but the distinction he's trying to get people to make is an important one. Your post, OTOH, has a rude and sarcastic undertone that is unjustified.

Tut Tut Tut Neiltom.

Please bend over so i can insert this 18 inch cucumber up your a*** passage. Forget slippers and rulers across the buttocks, i like to get something shoved right up there...Ya know what i mean?

P.S This post is rude, slightly sarcastic, and inappropriate...but no real undertone, maybe a tad sadistic. mmmm

And not clear in who it is addressing.

 

[Guest]

Bryan,

[...]

You seem to actually get quite angry about very little things.

Maybe you need a little holiday away from all the hair-loss research?

Sorry, but the distinction he's trying to get people to make is an important one. Your post, OTOH, has a rude and sarcastic undertone that is unjustified.

That's not rude and sarcastic at all. I also think Bryan's response to my post was a fair one whereas yours was not.

I also totally understand his point about newbies and repeating the same stuff over again etc.

It was just something I have noticed a quite a few times and thought I would try and address it politely.

The last comment about taking a holiday could be deemed as being a bit sarcastic but it was not meant that way, it was put in to keep the slightly light-hearted as I didn't want him to feel that I was attacking him in any way.

I think he deserves a few weeks in the South of France massaging essential oils into some tanned breasts. Maybe you should go with him Dave?

All work and no play is definitely bad for your health.

Anyway, let's end it here shall we?

Where's that f*****g cucumber, Petchsky?

 

[Bryan]

Dave, I still don't really get what he means. Those two sentences of his which you quoted above seem completely out of context from the rest of his post. :unsure:

Go back and read my post along with the quote from fnarr. I'm obviously correcting fnarr on two different points. "Pendantry to the nth degree." He said finasteride doesn't inhibit type I 5ar. I corrected him on that point. Then I said i don't think a topical dht inhibitor exist. Translation: "buddy, I don't think a topical dht inhibitor exist. Did you mean topical antiandrogens?"

Sorry, but I still don't know what you mean. What you said above isn't any explanation at all, it's just a repetition of what you had said previously. Your statement is ambiguous because it could mean at least a couple of different things:

1) Topically-applied substances cannot work effectively as 5a-reductase inhibitors ("DHT inhibitors"); therefore, no such inhibitor exists.

2) The term "DHT inhibitor" itself is vague and ambiguous; therefore, it cannot exist.

I'm surprised that you couldn't see the ambiguity of what you said. Please clarify for me now what you meant. Did you mean (1) or (2) above, or did you mean something else entirely?

Bryan

 

[Red Rose]

Bryan is it 5% Minoxidil or Minoxidil 5%?

Also is it Folligen before or after Minoxidil?

 

[Bryan]

That's another little Pet Peeve of mine: people who insist on saying things like "Years ago I started with minoxidil 2%, then I eventually upgraded to minoxidil 5%". Hey, what language IS this that we're speaking? Is it English, or is it French, Spanish, or Italian?? In English, adjectives are supposed to go BEFORE the nouns they modify, not AFTER!

Wouldn't it sound weird if I were to say, "I'm gonna run by the grocery store and pick up a carton of milk low-fat 2%"?? :freaked2:

Dr. Proctor says it probably doesn't matter much in what order you apply topicals, but I personally would apply Folligen first, wait a little while, then apply minoxidil.

Bryan

 

[Chujgcha]

2) The term "DHT inhibitor" itself is vague and ambiguous; therefore, it cannot exist.

That is my final answer. Sorry my post was vague. Next time I will post in binary.

 

[Guest]

I am going to employ a Proof Reader for my posts on this forum.

I dread to think what it must be like on http://www.englishgrammartalk.com.

 

[Dave001]

<snip>

Wouldn't it sound weird if I were to say, "I'm gonna run by the grocery store and pick up a carton of milk low-fat 2%"?? :freaked2:

Hmm... Yes, I suppose that you would have to go in the store to lift upward the carton of milk, which you would then proceed to purchase. Running passed the store probably wouldn't work. :wink: Actually, it sounds idiomatically correct to me (for informal dialogue), though one would never use that notation in formal writing, especially if it were technical. I'm sure someone could find a counterexample.

It's extremely complicated to draw up (but not draw down) a syntactic tree to precisely describe the English language because of all the idioms and variant word meanings, etc. That's probably why linguists often frown on prescriptivists.

 

[Dave001]

That's another little Pet Peeve of mine: people who insist on saying things like "Years ago I started with minoxidil 2%, then I eventually upgraded to minoxidil 5%". Hey, what language IS this that we're speaking? Is it English, or is it French, Spanish, or Italian?? In English, adjectives are supposed to go BEFORE the nouns they modify, not AFTER!

"DHT inhibitor" is ambiguous, but I couldn't care less about whether one says "5% minoxidil" or "minoxidil 5%." :wink:

It doesn't prevent me from interpreting the box of Kirkland Extra Strength for Men.
Active ingredient
Minoxidil 5% w/v

 

[Bryan]

"DHT inhibitor" is ambiguous, but I couldn't care less about whether one says "5% minoxidil" or "minoxidil 5%." :wink:

And I definitely could care less about it! :wink:

I always enjoy trying to find English equivalents for oddities encountered in foreign languages; for example, English nouns don't really have gender like they do in Romance languages, and yet ships and boats are frequently referred to as feminine entities: "She's a mighty ship, she is!", as a sailor might say.

Instead of saying the exact equivalent of "I broke my leg", a Frenchman would put it reflexively: "Je me suis casé la jambe". But that shouldn't sound all THAT unusual to us, because we use a similar construction in certain other similar situations: rather than say "I poked my eye", we generally say "I poked myself in the eye".

And there are even vaguely analogous situations in which we sometimes break our normal rule of putting adjectives BEFORE the noun. It's difficult to explain the poetic implications in the following examples, but we can all sense the color they impart: "I've always been a loser when it comes to matters financial", or "My wife tells me I'm hopeless when it comes to matters romantic". Maybe I should cut people a little slack for saying "minoxidil 5%"! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Dave001]

I always enjoy trying to find English equivalents for oddities encountered in foreign languages; for example, English nouns don't really have gender like they do in Romance languages, and yet ships and boats are frequently referred to as feminine entities: "She's a mighty ship, she is!", as a sailor might say.

How many languages do you speak?

Instead of saying the exact equivalent of "I broke my leg", a Frenchman would put it reflexively: "Je me suis casé la jambe". But that shouldn't sound all THAT unusual to us, because we use a similar construction in certain other similar situations: rather than say "I poked my eye", we generally say "I poked myself in the eye".

I had to sound that out. I can't imagine myself saying "I poked myself in the eye" in speech. I hope that I don't have an opportunity to test it in action though. I prefer the former construct; it says the same thing in fewer words.

And there are even vaguely analogous situations in which we sometimes break our normal rule of putting adjectives BEFORE the noun. It's difficult to explain the poetic implications in the following examples, but we can all sense the color they impart: "I've always been a loser when it comes to matters financial", or "My wife tells me I'm hopeless when it comes to matters romantic".

Imagine if mathematics had the precision of English: instead of using physical laws to calculate where the meteor was going to hit the earth, a panel of snobbish physicists would be called in to watch simulated crashes on a movie screen. The crash favored by the majority of the panel would be used to determine the appropriate course of action. Which collision sounded "right"? Was the explosion elegant? Did it have style? And the most important question of all: if none of the scientists were there to hear it, did it make a sound?

I was of course alluding (but now referring) to the "usage panels" that are used to determine the acceptability of various usages of the language.

Maybe I should cut people a little slack for saying "minoxidil 5%"! :wink:

Here's a post from the thread that I read immediately following this one:

you know revivogen is oily yeh..........so when your hair sheds alot of the shed hair will attach itslf to hair that isnt falling out..so when u put ur hands thru ur hair u will see less fall out...dnt believe me?..try it with normal oil...im not aying revivogen is crap..but the oil certainly helps it look liek less hair is falling out when u put ur hands thru it..anyways well done dude, keep up the good work, heard some success stories with revivogen, but not too many on this forum

Your expectations are WAY too high.

Thinking about this kind of stuff too much can have the effect of slowing one's writing down by several magnitude, in addition to making the end product worse. I am suddenly reminded of the saying in which the centipede, when asked how he manages to walk with all of those legs, becomes paralyzed because he can't figure out which foot to move first. I reckon it did gone somethin' like that.

 

[Old Baldy]

Yes Dave but what if you made a mistake like I made a few months ago when I told a guy on one of the sites to take nizoral three times a week. He PM'd me and said, "are you suggesting I buy some nizoral pills?". (I assume most people knew what I meant but at least one guy took it for what I wrote. I can't blame him!!)

I apologized for my rush answer and told him about the shampoo and that he could make it for much cheaper if he bought the keto. powder. After that, I review all my posts before submitting them. (Real stupid mistake on my part, thank God he didn't buy the pills before asking for clarification.)

Another time I totally botched giving people Bryan's old recipe for homemade spironolactone. cream. The nizoral mistake came later. The nizoral mistake was the last straw. Dumba** Old Baldy now reviews ALL his posts before submitting them!

Oh, I forgot to mention that the nizoral mistake was made on a site that you couldn't edit your message after a certain amount of time. I PM'd the moderator and he IMMEDIATELY deleted my entire post. I was lucky he was reading his emails at the time I sent the message to him.

 

[Dave001]

Yes Dave but what if you made a mistake like I made a few months ago when I told a guy on one of the sites to take nizoral three times a week. He PM'd me and said, "are you suggesting I buy some nizoral pills?". (I assume most people knew what I meant but at least one guy took it for what I wrote. I can't blame him!!)

I'm afraid that I don't see the connection, but if someone were to start popping pills on the advice of a post in a web forum, he deserves what he has coming.

I apologized for my rush answer and told him about the shampoo and that he could make it for much cheaper if he bought the keto. powder. After that, I review all my posts before submitting them. (Real stupid mistake on my part, thank God he didn't buy the pills before asking for clarification.)

I once considered that idea (crushing ketoconazole tabs), but IIRC, the price per gram worked out to more than what you get from the shampoo. What's the lowest price you've found on keto tabs? Ditto for keto creams/gel. Those were MUCH more expensive.

 

[Old Baldy]

I bought 25 grams for about $50 to $60, can't for the life of me remember where the f*** I bought it (about 7 months ago). Custom Nutrition Warehouse sells the powder, can't remember their prices and I can't get into their website right now. It's down apparently.

Yes, the pills and creams, for humans, are WAY overpriced compared to what the shampoo costs.

(I mainly bought it to make a cream that was suggested by another member.)

Dave, I do remember buying it a a site that sells vet. supplies. Here's an example.

http://www.vetamerica.com/index.asp?Pag ... ProdID=958

Here's another but I got it at a better price. (Note: Some medicines are better purchased at vet supply sites than at sites for humans. Now I'm just talking about topical usage. Well, that's all I'm going to say here! )

http://store.yahoo.com/vetamerica/fian.html

 

[Dave001]

I bought 25 grams for $80, can't for the life of me remember where the f*** I bought it (about 7 months ago). Custom Nutrition Warehouse sells the powder, can't remember their prices and I can't get into their website right now. It's down apparently.

Strange. I also noticed that their site was down when I answered a link request in another forum this afternoon. I've never ordered from them though. I didn't know that they had bulk ketoconazole powder. Thanks for the info.

Yes, the pills and creams are WAY overpriced compared to what the shampoo costs. (I mainly bought it to make a cream that was suggested by another member.)

The price that you paid for the powder is much better though. 120 ml Nizoral 2%[*] ≈ 2.4 gm (ketoconzole)

*Notation customized for Bryan! :lol: