The study you saw for six month treatement or for 2 years ?
I saw the official study that was carried by Fidia + Brotzu + his son + first Brotzu's team, the one which was presented at Sitri briefly in form of abstract. This study lasted 6 months, from May to December 2016. I'm not aware of any other study that lasted 2 years. Maybe you are referring to one of the blatant Beps lies, in particular the one where he said that 5 years of hair could be recovered in 18 months? How the hell does he know if they conducted, as far as I'm aware, only two trials, both of 6 months duration? Don't get me started on him and his claims, please. I respect Brotzu senior but not his son.
Just like 7thsense said above. The study is as fake as brotzu own fake hair, but, still gonna buy it.. go ahead ppl.
Thanks for the update...out of interest, what makes it so delusional......of course, Ill reseve full judgement till I read it myself....but an idea of what makes it so bad would be appreciated?
I don't exactly understand what you mean by "fake" in this case; it's a language barrier I suppose. Don't get me wrong, the study is not false, is 100% true and legit. In fact, half of the pages are references and bibliography; all the claims, ideas, results stated are justified and supported by existing literature correctly quoted. Study design is ok aside from some incomprehensible choices, and a lot of different methods and devices were used to evaluate the situation and what was going on the patients' heads.
It just demonstrates nothing about the effectiveness of this lotion on Androgenetic Alopecia. Or, more precisely, the study demonstrates that in a time frame of 6 months, this lotion is able to practically halt the shedding in almost all the patients. What does it mean in terms of "yeah, does this mean we're cured..?" is left to our imagination. I don't feel safe about reviewing here the study because it shouldn't be available to the public. However, there are many questions that I would like to ask to the team, such as "why did you say in the abstract that you enrolled men from 18 to 55 and then you said the average age of the males is 46 years old, and later on you said that the range was 30-60?" or "why are you going to publish a study carried in 2016 when you admitted later in 2017 that there were stability issues with the lotion?" or the most hilarious one: "why did you write that 'All the authors state, however, that Fidia Farmaceutici S.p.A. did not participate in the decision to submit this manuscript for publication.' ???"
I'm constantly deleting and retyping this message because I don't want to disclose the study, but I could write for hours about it. I'll just explain better some things presented at last sitri after having read the full paper:
Aside from many other incomprehensible statements, the study shows that on women only the hair count increases in a significant manner, while in both groups the shedding is halted; in women's, the shedding stops almost immediately, while men experienced later these benefits. I don't know why the trial ended at 6 months then, if they were confident that men could have had their hair count increased over this time. The conclusions are "the lotion is effective and safe in stopping and preventing hair loss". What 'hair loss' means is left to the readers' imagination, meanwhile the lotion is marketed with "anti - hair fall" written under the package's name, and Fidia changed the last italian update from "hair loss cure" to "hair fall treatment".
What this lotion does is stopping the shedding ("favoring hair growth"), making "the hairs strong, more robust, and luscious".
There are many other points we could debate, such as regrowth amd thickening, but I don't want to disclose them.
Does it mean that for the next years we're going to use hair gel instead of hair blades? I don't really think so.
