Discussion on the new Revivogen Study

[Jacob]

Well that just makes it even more insane then. Including the point about why they were saying maximal inhibition before(when it was at 98%).

A similar vehicle should always be used, regardless..if a comparison is going to be made. As in the 98% and now 90% nonsense, they're very good at marketing the product. And if "inhibting dht" worked so well...... :freak:

 

[ripple-effect]

You have got to be kidding me....

Oh yea?...you want to go as far as hanging on one word said by the creator to denounce the product's credibility. Seems like a joke to me when he has all these studies to back up the formula. I really believe what he meant by maximal is that compared to his product, none other exceeded his in inhibiting DHT. Words can have multiple meanings and according to the first definition I gave, the word "maximal" fits in perfectly. All it takes is one good definition bro....you can throw a hundred more definitions of what you thought he meant, but it really doesn't matter. Anyone with common sense would know that. IMO, you're putting up a useless argument...even if you were right about "maximal" that still would not mean his product was a scam, snake oil, fake(whatever you want to call it).

I also don't understand what you asked him. If it was about this maximal thing....then I wouldn't be surprised on why he didn't respond.

 

[jh]

Well that just makes it even more insane then. Including the point about why they were saying maximal inhibition before(when it was at 98%).

A similar vehicle should always be used, regardless..if a comparison is going to be made. As in the 98% and now 90% nonsense, they're very good at marketing the product. And if "inhibting dht" worked so well...... :freak:

Look, I'm not trying to defend Dr. Khadavi, but it wasn't that they claimed you would get reductions in scalp levels of DHT by 98%. They claimed that the ingredients were proven to inhibit 5AR by 98% - which is true. On hamster flank organs. There are studies on this site and his to back that up.

This is the first test on something similar to human skin and it showed a 90% reduction in DHT levels.

 

[Jacob]

But the point is it doesn't matter what it was "maximized" on. He just said maximal inhibition. Then he adds two new "anti-dht" ingredients. Now this latest "study" supposedly on something that's supposed to be just like human skin etc, which is really a different issue. Again, he/they are VERY good at marketing this stuff.


ripple-effect.. MAXIMAL means EXACTLY that. See my previous post on the definitions, which all have to do with MAXIMUM. You pick ONE out that still defines it as "the greatest or most complete or best possible; "maximal expansion"; "maximum pressure" Shall we look up the definition of "maximum"? It for sure isn't "a high point with room to spare"


He didn't respond to my questions, which again were exactly about this issue(not the definition of maximum), because there is no explanation for saying "maximal inhibition" has been found, but wait- we've now gone beyond "maximal inhibition". This does not have to do, btw, with "one word" he used. That's why I put the entire quote up, and it also has to do with his refusal to respond to the question.

"All these studies" btw...where is the trial on the users of the stuff? This product has been around for YEARS. There are tons of studies for a lot of things being used- including what I use. But that doesn't make something a wonder product or translate to - on humans, if the studies weren't on humans.

 

[ripple-effect]

You're pretty much ignoring my post.....up to you whether or not you agree/disagree w/ Revivogen. I'm right, though, because you don't even know what you are talking about....lol.

How come this thread died out?? Too many non-believers or what? Anyone planning on using Revivogen?

 

[Jacob]

I'm not ignoring anything at all. My points still stand.

I'm not surprised there's not much interest, although I'm surprised Bryan hasn't been in this particular thread. Maybe he's talked about it elsewhere...?

 

[bcapop]

I have to agree with Jacob here. They are really good at marketing :bravo: . And why are you trying to defend the "MAXIMAL INHIBITION OF DHT" Ripple? You can't.

 

[jh]

But the point is it doesn't matter what it was "maximized" on. He just said maximal inhibition. Then he adds two new "anti-dht" ingredients.

This is semantic nonsense. If it doesn't matter, you could argue that DHT inhibition was "maximized" on hamster flank organs in the earlier formulation - 98% is pretty close to to maximum. And the two new ingredients were added to "maximize" DHT inhibition in human skin.

When did you ask him your question? Revivogen was produced with the "new" ingredients well before the official announcement.

 

[Jacob]

Ah..what you just said is nonsense. As I said- he didn't say what it was being "maximized" on. So when he says "maximal inhibition"...that..is...what...he...means.

*I* asked him the question AFTER the new ingredients were announced. The questions being asked of him by Morphollica at the time(where my quotes came from) were about the current formula Revivogen at.. that.. time. There is no way in you-know-where that the new ingredients were being added at the time Morphollica had that interview. A specific question on additional ingreds was asked- he even said none were being added(!) because maximal inhibition had been achieved.

 

[ripple-effect]

Let's do it like this (try and pay attention this time) ....picture a graph...three dots on the graph.....one is for finasteride, another for dutasteride, another for revivogen. The y axis = amount of DHT inhibited. finasteride = 70% dutasteride =80% and Revivo = 90%. Revivo hits the highest point on the graph in terms of DHT inhibition amongst the main DHT blockers aka "maximal DHT inhibition." I'm not trying to speak for Dr. Khadavi, this is just my point of view and it makes PERFECT sense. Dr. Khadavi would have to be stupid to say it the way you mean it. Look at the sentences around the sentence where he mentions "maximal inhibition." THOSE statements shape what he meant by "maximal." First he hints at possible new ingredients and second he NEVER said he would NEVER need to add new ingredients. If he meant it the way you think he does then all he would say is something like "Adding new ingredients is completely unnecessary and we never plan to add any because the current formula we have inhibits all of the DHT in the scalp."

Instead he says it like this:

From researching and testing other ingredients that could potentially be used in Revivogen, we are currently not adding any new ingredients. This is due to the fact that maximal inhibition of DHT has been achieved with the active ingredients of Revivogen since the active ingredients that are being used in the current Revivogen formula are the most potent of all the ingredients available to us that are natural.

 

[dresden]

Well everybody is praising revivogen and I think revivogen is great, I think im gonna try it sometime, but let me just share with you my bad feelings about this study, and please comment it as i could be totally wrong about all of it.

So when you take 1 mg finasteride orally you get 7 p.p.m. in your blood, and they used a solution that had 372 p.p.m??(i checked ccs calculations and they are right!). thats like 50 times more! So the results arent real.

However, there's something i dont understand: 372 p.p.m is 0.372 mg of finasteride in a liter. Many people have mixed i guess like 10 mg of finasteride and still got no results (but the study says around 70% of dht is inhibited).

Which leads me to a conclusion: they didnt take the right considerations on how much of the solution is really absorved and how efficient it acts! Which leads me to another conclusion: If the finasteride results are far exagerated, so are the revivogen ones.

If in their study 0.372mg/liter of finasteride (which we know that in reality it sucks) inhibited almost as much as revivogen, you could say revivogen sucks too.

 

[ChrisJ]

Hey guys. I just sent these questions to Revivogen. I hope they answer and the answers would be good and satisfactory and true:

1) This study was done on "reconstructed human epidermis". Hair follicles are, on the other hand, in dermis. Can you say anything about the inhibition of DHT in dermis due to Revivogen? Would the results in dermis be as good as in epidermis? Do you know how much of the DHT that causes male pattern hair loss Revivogen inhibits?

2) Do you know and/or can you think of any reason that the study results wouldnt be duplicated in real skin? Can we infer from this study that Revivogen is better than Finasteride or Dutasteride when it comes to hair loss?

3) Will you do more studies? Such as DHT inhibition rates in people and hair count studies? When?


What do you think? And has anyone used the Revivogen shampoo and conditioner?

 

[ChrisJ]

I posted this once before but I'm going to post it again for this thread:

Q: The very fact that you would produce a topical DHT inhibitor implies that you don't feel that blood levels of DHT are significant in balding. Can you justify this point of view or provide evidence to support it?

A: The blood levels of DHT may play a minor role in Androgenetic Alopecia but it is the locally produced DHT which plays the major role. If you look at any physiology text book (such as Guyton's Medical Physiology) you can see that the majority of DHT production takes place at the site where it exerts its effects. Also there is a high concentration of type 2 isoenzyme within the hair follicle itself and a higher concentration of the type 1 form within the scalp and sebaceous glands which feed into the hair follicle. Together they can produce more DHT locally than what blood brings to the hair follicle. Also most researchers now believe that it is the locally produced DHT that is involved in Androgenetic Alopecia rather than the circulatory DHT. Finally there is new evidence about effectiveness of topical inhibition of DHT on hair growth by Dr. Christiano which provides support for this theory.

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/productrevi ... erview.htm

Good explanation on why topical is better than internal. Also, I want to know why CCS hates Saw Palmetto so much? Is it b/c you have already tried it internally? They say that only 2% of Saw palmetto gets distributed to the scalp if taken internally(I'm not sure as a fact though...that's what I've heard). It might be different topically. PME, revivogen is primarily used to stop hair loss...not regrowing hair...but if you're a real good responder then it's possible to regrow hair like the pictures posted on their website b/c they do include some few mild natural regrowing agents(GSE w/ B-2) in their formula.

That was a good question and a good answer. However, they said, "the majority of DHT production takes place at the site where it exerts its effects". So I wonder if the DHT inhibition due to Revivogen in dermis is as good as the study results on reconstructed epidermis.

 

[Jacob]

Let's do it like this (try and pay attention this time) ....picture a graph...three dots on the graph.....one is for finasteride, another for dutasteride, another for revivogen. The y axis = amount of DHT inhibited. finasteride = 70% dutasteride =80% and Revivo = 90%. Revivo hits the highest point on the graph in terms of DHT inhibition amongst the main DHT blockers aka "maximal DHT inhibition." I'm not trying to speak for Dr. Khadavi, this is just my point of view and it makes PERFECT sense. Dr. Khadavi would have to be stupid to say it the way you mean it. Look at the sentences around the sentence where he mentions "maximal inhibition." THOSE statements shape what he meant by "maximal." First he hints at possible new ingredients and second he NEVER said he would NEVER need to add new ingredients. If he meant it the way you think he does then all he would say is something like "Adding new ingredients is completely unnecessary and we never plan to add any because the current formula we have inhibits all of the DHT in the scalp."

Instead he says it like this:

From researching and testing other ingredients that could potentially be used in Revivogen, we are currently not adding any new ingredients. This is due to the fact that maximal inhibition of DHT has been achieved with the active ingredients of Revivogen since the active ingredients that are being used in the current Revivogen formula are the most potent of all the ingredients available to us that are natural.

With all due respect..you are the one who needs to pay attention. The "maximal inhibition" comment was made BEFORE THIS LATEST STUDY. He DOES NOT hint at new ingredients when he made those comments. And he DOES basically say none need to be added, since MAXIMAL INHIBITION HAS BEEN ACHIEVED. And that's all I need to say :nono: Although I'm tempted to post the definition of maximum.

 

[Jacob]

ChrisJ..I think those are excellent questions. Good points by dresden as well.

BTW..if anyone is really getting results from the product(s)- keep using them. I am going by what I've learned over the past 4 years or so, starting out with how I came across the product(infomercial type ad at Worldnetdaily.com). Then the statements being made that don't add up..questions aren't added..and I should add the push for this product on these hair-loss sites(not talking about the forums here).

 

[ChrisJ]

Well everybody is praising revivogen and I think revivogen is great, I think im gonna try it sometime, but let me just share with you my bad feelings about this study, and please comment it as i could be totally wrong about all of it.

So when you take 1 mg finasteride orally you get 7 p.p.m. in your blood, and they used a solution that had 372 p.p.m??(i checked ccs calculations and they are right!). thats like 50 times more! So the results arent real.

However, there's something i dont understand: 372 p.p.m is 0.372 mg of finasteride in a liter. Many people have mixed i guess like 10 mg of finasteride and still got no results (but the study says around 70% of dht is inhibited).

Which leads me to a conclusion: they didnt take the right considerations on how much of the solution is really absorved and how efficient it acts! Which leads me to another conclusion: If the finasteride results are far exagerated, so are the revivogen ones.

If in their study 0.372mg/liter of finasteride (which we know that in reality it sucks) inhibited almost as much as revivogen, you could say revivogen sucks too.

I dont know about those calculations but I think what is important is that they compared the 3 products under equal conditions.

We know finasteride works (altho not perfectly) so if something does better compared to it, it should be good news.

I think the exaggerated doses are for faster results. It'd be inefficient if they used regular doses on the reconstructed epidermis. They'd have to wait for like months.

What I wonder is the difference between oral and topical finasteride and dutasteride.

 

[ripple-effect]

Jacob, I was not even referring to this study. He had claimed 90+% inhibition long before this study and he had the studies on ingredients in his forumla that suggested that. Second, what is it about the current topicals you use that makes you choose them over revivogen? I don't know which exactly which version of nanoscalp you use....but from a glimpse of some of those ingredients....out of all my research have never heard most of those ingredients benefiting hair nor seen any studies suggesting their benefits for hair. To me they look like a bunch of vitamins throw together into a hair loss forumula? It even has panthenol in it....maybe you like it cause it makes your hair looks good instead of flat like Revivo? who knows..

Key ingredients in NanoScalpâ„¢ include:

oil/water extracts of botanicals (passion flowers, green coffee beans, ashwagandha root, damiana leaf, tribulus terrestris, yohimbe bark, wild yam root, bitter melon seeds), (functional extracts include non-hormonal aromatase and DHT arrestors*. They also include a super anti-oxdidant combination, and are rich in tannins and many other active components)
Nano-Dispersosomes (Nano-Dispersosomes are nano-capsules which are also vehicles. Unlike other capsules or spheres, they are not only extremely small, but can both encapsulate and mobilize active ingredients deep into skin or scalp. Most spheres are not vehicles and are merely capsules which need to be further incorporated into a vehicle. Nano-Dispersosomes, though different from Nanosomes, are very effective vehicles and can mobilize actives quickly and effectively into skin or scalp)
L-Carnosine(active peptide)
DMAE (highly beneficial active)
xanthan gum (texturizer)
imidurea, methyl paraben, propyl paraben (preservatives)

Chris....you don't need to buy the Revivo Shampoo and Conditioner...just the scalp therapy formula. I bought the revivo shampoo and conditioner and it has a nice cooling effect cause of the menthol, but it really won't do much for hair loss. They say it's a good conjunction with the scalp therapy but IMO I think nizoral is better b/c it's strong anti-inflammatory/anti-androgen. Revivo shampoo has very mild anti inflammatory properties IMO and I think if you leave the conditioner on too long you will get a headache.

 

[Jacob]

What you posted had to do with this latest study. The #'s..the comparison to dutasteride and finasteride, etc. None of that was done in the previous 98% or whatever it was "study".

On my topicals, there's only one NanoScalp as far as I know. Maybe you're thinking of ZormaZor, which I also do use on occasion. NanoScalp contains L-Carnosine and green coffee bean extract(also contains caffeine- there's some "study" on that), which I know have been discussed in these types of forums. Probably some of the other ingreds as well. Dr. Yechiel goes into some detail about the ingreds here: http://skincare-cosmeceuticals.com/formulations/index.php?topic=18.0
Not sure where the panthenol is.

Juveline has some "new" ingredients, but also others that we all know about.

Equisomin had melatonin in it before it was even brought up in these forums.

Why would I choose them over Revivogen? What got me so interested in the beginning was Elsom's use of nanosomes, along with not using alcohol or pg in the topicals. I knew about Revivogen before Elsom, but I gave some of the reasons why I wasn't interested in previous posts. It's been around so long but it doesn't seem like does much(may be hard to tell if ppl don't stick with it). Using some of these new things is a way, imo, to try to do better.

 

[ripple-effect]

What you posted had to do with this latest study.

Lol..nope....these percentages(not exact) were already known previous to this study. If you didn't know that ....then that sure is proof you don't have a clue what you're talking about and why you're view is obscured.

You mention only caffeine in your useless topical as having "some study"...lol... that makes no sense to me. Revivogen is packed with ingredients that have solid studies on almost all of it's ingredients and yet you want to think it's snake oil because he (apparently to you) decided add 2 solid new ingredients that would most likely help create a better formula and you think this is wrong b/c he previously said that he "currently" wasn't going to add ingredients and by currently you thought he meant never.. you make no sense at all..

 

[bigblackattack]

Seems like a lot of people find success in it, a lot of complaints about the price.

Anyone here seeing any regrowth or maintaing? I'm not sure if I want to try this or Propecia.

http://www.revivogen.com/testimonials/index.html