Fabao 101

[mvpsoft]

I've searched the archives in this forum and found only sporadic discussion of this product. I'm interested in why this product is generally thought to be of the "snake oil" variety.

The website for the product lists three published studies on the effectiveness of the product. I haven't read the studies, so I don't know what they say. But presumably they show that the product has some effectiveness, or the site would likely not have cited them. Assuming that is so, again, why is this product generally thought to not be effective? Has anyone here tried it for six months or longer?

The makers do claim that once the product causes your hair to grow back, you don't have to continue to use the product. That sounds dubious, given what we know about the causes of hair loss, and given that no other product can make that claim.

Has anyone tried this product for six months or longer? What were the results? I searched the web, and no matter where I looked, I saw comments like "I tried it for two months, didn't work for me" or "more hair started falling out in my first month, so I stopped using it." I couldn't find comments from anyone who had tried it for six months or longer. We all know that minoxidil or propecia or any proven treatment will cause more hair to fall out in the first month and won't be effective if used for only two months in the vast majority of cases.

I don't want to waste my money on snake oil. OTOH, I want to know if we're dismissing this product too easily. Can anyone find and post the results from these citations?

A. G. H. Kessels, R. L. L. M. Cardynaals R. L. L. Borger, M. J. T. H. Go, J. C. C. A. Lambers, J. A. Knottnerus and P. G. Knipschild, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 44, No. 4/5, pp 439-447,1991

B. C. Qian, J. Chen and H. J. Xu
Pharmacological Action of 101 Hair Regeneration Extract On Skin and Hair In Experimental Animals. Journal of Traditional and Modern Medicine, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp 227-229, 1994.

 

[HairlossTalk]

I will ask Bryan to do some digging in his journal archives for these studies and let us know what he can find. My understanding re: fabao is that they've pretty much just done what everyone else does. They put together a bunch of herbs that they knew had the ability to increase bloodflow or "flush" the skin in whatever area it was applied. By this logic they felt they could 'stimulate hair growth'.

As a general rule, hair will respond to agitation by growing. Follicles are weird like that. That's why you've got people like Tom at HLReversible.com promoting the whole "rub the scalp" technique. Its really no different. Logic is basically the same. The thing about this type of "growth stimulation" is that many people do not respond.

For those that do grow hair via the "agitation" technique, the results do not last longer than 6 months. This is why most scam products out there have 6 month guarantee's. By the time you've grown a bit of hair from it, screamed all over the web that it works (increasing sales) and the guarantee runs out, you suddenly lose what you gained. Only to be told by Fabao that "you're probably just not an optimal responder".

Thats one of the most tricky things about snake oils today. They may work for awhile, but they wont work for the minimum 1 - 2 yrs necessary to be considered a "hair loss treatment". Short term growth (if any) followed by ineffectiveness.

HairLossTalk.com

 

[mvpsoft]

Thanks, if you come up with anything, please let me know.

Fabao is definitely a herbal remedy, and the herbs are listed on their website, but the herbs are different than the ones used in anything else I've seen. Also, if all it does is stimulate blood flow, then could it possibly be effective in combination with something else? For example, we know that minoxidil and propecia work well together because they do different things, both of which help in hair loss. If Fabao does yet another thing, a beneficial thing, could it perhaps be useful as part of an overall treatment program? Fabao claims to do more than increase blood flow, however, they also claim to reduce DHT and sebum in the scalp. Again, I'm not saying that the claim is true, only that they make that claim.

I want to stress that I'm not shilling for or pushing this product in any way. I am curious about it though.

None of the other snake oils tout double-blind placebo studies, and none to my knowledge brag about articles in peer-reviewed journals. To me, that's what makes this one worth a look, although not necessarily a use.

 

[mvpsoft]

I found out some about the studies. Here are some links:

http://www.keratin.com/ac/baldnesstreat ... suse.shtml

http://www.keratin.com/ac/baldnesstreat ... ence.shtml

These links basically say the same thing. Doesn't look real promising.

 

[HairlossTalk]

Keep in mind that studies mean little or nothing if they don't get published in a reputable medical journal. Its going to be a real pain when snake oil salesmen realize the value of saying they ran a clinical trial because a lot more people are going to get tricked into buying their stuff.

If the study was never published that means it never got peer reviewed for accuracy, authenticity, and proper methods.

To compound the situation more, there are pseudo medical journals that aren't recognized by the medical community but which will publish studies with much less stringent criteria ... pretty much defeating the whole purpose. If something gets published in the American Academy of Dermatology, that is a study I will listen to.

HairLossTalk.com

 

[mvpsoft]

Those studies were published in what I believe are peer reviewed journals, but I do not know enough about medical journals to know which ones are the best, other than the top few that everyone knows. Having published in peer reviewed journals myself in a different field, some of which were top journals and some of which weren't, I know that worthwhile work is not necessarily published in the top journals. That's why you have to read the report for yourself. The problem is, I have no idea to find the reports from these two journals.

The interesting statistic to me is that this particular study referenced in the links in my previous post found that 42% of the group using Fabao had increased hair density, but 37% of the control group (using placebo) did as well, although fewer hairs. What's up with that? Also, as you suspect HairLossTalk.com, it was a 6 month study only.

I still would like to see the complete text of the reports for both studies, however, as I don't trust summaries. Maybe there is some explanation for the bizarre placebo result.