Does minoxidil lose the effectiveness in long-time use?

[majorsixth]

Yes twat i have read them, and they certainly show that both hair counts and weights begin to drop after two years...

I said in plain English (English IS spoken where you live, isn't it?) that although haircounts and hairweights drop when using finasteride, it has FAR more of a stabilizing effect than minoxidil. Haven't you seen that graph that's been posted REPEATEDLY from the 5-year finasteride study, in which the haircounts from the finasteride users dropped only a teeny tiny bit after five years (still above baseline), but the ones from the placebo users dropped PRECIPITOUSLY, after five years (well below baseline)?

The main point is that they do start to decline, which suggests that the balding process is continuing, and it's not much better then minoxidil.

I have used both long enough to see their results respectively.

I've asked you for the studies to proxiphen and you have said that there is none, yet still make ridiculous statements about it being better then both Rogaine and Finasteride.....How on earth can anyone take what you write seriously when you only quote scientific data when it suits you?

 

[Bryan]

The main point is that they do start to decline, which suggests that the balding process is continuing, and it's not much better then minoxidil.

I have used both long enough to see their results respectively.

LOL!! It's a whole LOT better than minoxidil! Do you even know what the hell I'm talking about? The graph showing 5-year finasteride haircounts, compared to 5-year PLACEBO haircounts? :dunno:

 

[majorsixth]

The main point is that they do start to decline, which suggests that the balding process is continuing, and it's not much better then minoxidil.

I have used both long enough to see their results respectively.

LOL!! It's a whole LOT better than minoxidil! Do you even know what the hell I'm talking about? The graph showing 5-year finasteride haircounts, compared to 5-year PLACEBO haircounts? :dunno:

Here you go again making claims about drugs you have never used. I have four years of experiences with finasteride. Maybe you should actually try these drugs before putting your mouth into gear.

The fact that the hair counts and weights decline after two years shows that the drug is not successful in stopping the balding process. Now what part of stopping the balding process do you not understand? :shakehead:

Why do you keep ignoring my point about you claiming proxiphen is better then both finasteride/min without scientific data?

 

[Bryan]

Here you go again making claims about drugs you have never used. I have four years of experiences with finasteride. Maybe you should actually try these drugs before putting your mouth into gear.

The fact that the hair counts and weights decline after two years shows that the drug is not successful in stopping the balding process. Now what part of stopping the balding process do you not understand? :shakehead:

ROTFLMAO!!! I can't talk about something, unless I've actually used it? :laugh:

Because you haven't even bothered to answer my question, I have to assume that no, you HAVEN'T seen that graph I've referred to! Try doing an online search for it...it's straight from Merck, and shows the 5-year finasteride results. It's quite shocking, and shows you what I mean by "inhibiting the fundamental balding process."

 

[majorsixth]

Here you go again making claims about drugs you have never used. I have four years of experiences with finasteride. Maybe you should actually try these drugs before putting your mouth into gear.

The fact that the hair counts and weights decline after two years shows that the drug is not successful in stopping the balding process. Now what part of stopping the balding process do you not understand? :shakehead:

ROTFLMAO!!! I can't talk about something, unless I've actually used it? :laugh:

Because you haven't even bothered to answer my question, I have to assume that no, you HAVEN'T seen that graph I've referred to! Try doing an online search for it...it's straight from Merck, and shows the 5-year finasteride results. It's quite shocking, and shows you what I mean by "inhibiting the fundamental balding process."

Listen you moron ! I've seen the graph too many times because of D2 posting it.

Now why don't you explain to everyone here including Jacob Why it's not necessary for you to produce any scientific data about Proxiphen being better then finasteride or minoxidil After all you appear very keen to keep quoting the data about finasteride. Or are you just going to ignore this fact again?

 

[Bryan]

Listen you moron ! I've seen the graph too many times because of D2 posting it.

Oh, so maybe you HAVE seen that graph! By the way, are you still reading HLH, even though you told Farrel to delete your account? :mrgreen:

 

[WarLord]

Should I repeat, what I said once again?

The 5-years' studies obviously were not sufficient to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of both finasteride and minoxidil. The 5-years' finasteride study gives a very different result than the recent 10-years' study. Maybe the "average result" in haircounts per person is not identical with the "average result", as for the number of guys, who maintain or even improve the state of their hair. It is quite possible that bad responders, who start to lose their hairs rapidly after several years, can effectively "erase" the generally positive effect in the majority of users.

I have no reason to suppose that the long-term effect of minoxidil would be much different from finasteride. The only difference may lie in the fact that the currently preferred 5% minoxidil version is inferior to 1 mg finasteride, so the number of non-responders may increase more with the length of the therapy. That's all. Minoxidil is not a one-year's treatment that suddenly loses efficiacy immediately after it regrows hair. That's just illogical and nonsensical. It works for many, many years.

 

[WarLord]

You don't have to "buy it", all you have to do is look at the results of long-term topical minoxidil studies, and you'll see that what I've been telling you is the truth. After the initial increase in haircounts and hairweights that you get when you first start using topical minoxidil (after the first few months), those counts and weights appear to start declining again, the same as they do in people on placebo. Why does that happen? It's OBVIOUS: minoxidil doesn't interfere with the fundamental balding process.

I know, I know. According to your study, I should have been below the original baseline 10 years ago, and I should have been bald 5 years ago. But my hairs don't work according to that study. They are probably heretics that should be burned in hell.

By the way, these people also don't use anti-androgens:
http://www.thebaldtruth.com/articles/hi ... interview/
Poor fools! "Newborn cells grown under embryonic conditions" - what a pseudoscience ignoring the underlying cause of male pattern baldness!

 

[DoctorHouse]

How many people on have have seen minoxidil lose effectiveness in long term use? I noticed my results were not as good as the first few years of use. However, I really think minoxidil twice a day is more effective than once a day if you are going to use it LONG term. I think if you go to once per day, you lose some effectiveness even if the drug stays in your scalp for 22 hours. I think more is better when it comes to minoxidil in LONG term use. I wish I had no sides from minoxidil as I really know it helped me more than I thought especially when I used it diligently twice per day. I am glad I don't get sides from Proctor's products. I have noticed so far no products have completely halted hair loss for me but I think its slowed things down some for me. Fighting hair loss is not easy no matter how old you are. I just saw a guy close to 60 who has a perfect NW1, very little gray hair, a small forehead. Basically he hit the jackpot for hair but he is really short so I guess he lost in that department where I hit the jackpot there. :innocent: I wish I could be blessed with his genetics for hair. It would be nice to have one less thing to worry about as I get older. :whistle: Would I trade his hair for my height? No way!!! I have learned height is more important to women than hair.

 

[Bryan]

Should I repeat, what I said once again?

The 5-years' studies obviously were not sufficient to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of both finasteride and minoxidil.

Why don't you think 5 years is long enough to evaluate the long-term results of those drugs?

The 5-years' finasteride study gives a very different result than the recent 10-years' study.

What's the difference in results? :dunno:

I have no reason to suppose that the long-term effect of minoxidil would be much different from finasteride.

I'll repeat what I said before: don't just try to use logic to compare long-term results of finasteride and minoxidil, compare the results, using long-term scientific studies. You'll see better results with finasteride, because it inhibits the fundamental balding process. Minoxidil doesn't do that, in my opinion.

 

[Bryan]

You don't have to "buy it", all you have to do is look at the results of long-term topical minoxidil studies, and you'll see that what I've been telling you is the truth. After the initial increase in haircounts and hairweights that you get when you first start using topical minoxidil (after the first few months), those counts and weights appear to start declining again, the same as they do in people on placebo. Why does that happen? It's OBVIOUS: minoxidil doesn't interfere with the fundamental balding process.

I know, I know. According to your study, I should have been below the original baseline 10 years ago, and I should have been bald 5 years ago. But my hairs don't work according to that study. They are probably heretics that should be burned in hell.

What "study" are you referring to? :dunno:

 

[WarLord]

I see it is a pointless discussion... But the most important thing is that you can't evaluate any anti-hairloss drug with words "it will stop working after several years". There is always a gradient, continuum of efficiency. Someone will be completely unsuccessful, someone will observe a loss of efficiency after several years, someone can use it almost indefinitely.

 

[WarLord]

However, I really think minoxidil twice a day is more effective than once a day if you are going to use it LONG term. I think if you go to once per day, you lose some effectiveness even if the drug stays in your scalp for 22 hours. I think more is better when it comes to minoxidil in LONG term use.

I have never used minoxidil twice a day. That would be impossible. Otherwise I would look like a homeless man with greasy hair. I wash my hair every morning, I wait some time until it is only slightly wet - and then apply 3-4 ml of minoxidil on the whole head surface normally affected by hairloss. The next day, my hair is entirely normal. I don't understand people, who complain about the stickiness of minoxidil solutions. It would never occur to me to apply it on dry hair!

So far I have really had no problems and even in the period, when I started to be sloppy in the everyday's use, I didn't notice any hair loss. But I will never repeat it again. It is much harder to regrow hair than to keep it.

If you can't stop your hairloss, you should combine more treatments together. Minoxidil+finasteride+Nizoral.

 

[majorsixth]

Warlord wrote
I see it is a pointless discussion...

Absolutely correct I really can't understand how others take what this guys say seriously? I mean here he his telling you the in and outs of finasteride, he even quotes scientific data to back his words, yet in other posts practices hypocrisy By endorsing a crap snake oil without any scientific backing.

Warlord
But the most important thing is that you can't evaluate any anti-hairloss drug with words

But the hypocrite as also evaluated the drug finasteride from scientific data. I'm still waiting for the scientific data on proxiphen?

This mans experience with really hair loss drugs is zero, he just quotes what other experts have written, i sometimes wonder if he actually understands what he reads?

 

[Bryan]

I see it is a pointless discussion... But the most important thing is that you can't evaluate any anti-hairloss drug with words "it will stop working after several years". There is always a gradient, continuum of efficiency. Someone will be completely unsuccessful, someone will observe a loss of efficiency after several years, someone can use it almost indefinitely.

What you _do_ need to keep in mind, though (or at least attempt to keep in mind), are the specific biological reasons for why an "anti-hairloss drug" has its effects. That should help give you some idea (along with graphs showing their long-term use in human subjects) whether their effect has to do with interfering in some way with the fundamental process of balding, or if they merely stimulate the growth of hair in a much more temporary manner (a manner that certainly won't last forever).

In all your previous posts in this thread, I've read your comments over and over, trying to understand what it is you're saying, and why it is that you seem to be having so much trouble with what to me are rather simple concepts. Until you can finally grasp what I said in my first paragraph above, I agree with you: this is a pointless discussion.

 

[majorsixth]

Bryan Wrote
whether their effect has to do with interfering in some way with the fundamental process of balding

This is what I'm talking about when i say i doubt he understands what he reads?

The fact that the hair is stimulated to grow against the balding process is clearly interfering with the male pattern baldness process Common sense tells you that without the stimulant minoxidil the hair would fall out due to the process of balding.

So if you regrow any hair from using only minoxidil and five years on that same hair is still growing the minoxidil as clearly maintained it.

 

[majorsixth]

Bryan Wrote
Until you can finally grasp what I said in my first paragraph above, I agree with you: this is a pointless discussion

I've read some ridiculous statements of yours, but this one just as to be awarded the cake. :bravo: for the stupidity you have clearly shown that it's you that don't understand.

 

[Jacob]

DoctorHouse :shakehead:

Just so Bryan doesn't miss it...see Proctor's non-response to that comprehensive 3 year clinical study: http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=72201&start=50

 

[DoctorHouse]

Jacob :shakehead: :tongue: :roll: :smoke:

 

[majorsixth]

DoctorHouse :shakehead:

Just so Bryan doesn't miss it...see Proctor's non-response to that comprehensive 3 year clinical study: http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=72201&start=50

Any doctor that managed to produce a hair loss product for which the statement Unquestionbly is better then finasteride/minoxidil would be proud to show off this study. Further more, such a study would also be published and rank high within the hair loss community.

But I'm sure you realise that it doesn't exist and you will be holding you breath a very very long time waiting for Proctor to reply.