I think you understand what I'm trying to say, but are kind of casually skewing it to seem like less of a deal. Not that I'm saying it is a big deal to begin with.
If you are consistently shedding 300 hairs per day for 1 year, you can safely assume that every day around 300 hairs are entering catagen->telogen. So if telogen phase lasts 3 months, you can safely assume at any point in that timeline, you will continue to shed 300 hairs per day for the next 3 months guaranteed, since no product can affect the behavior or duration of the telogen phase (excluding minoxidil, under the assumption that it abruptly stops telogen and immediately induces anagen).
The only thing I can think of that goes against this timeline is the fact that transplanted hair sheds 1-5 weeks after a transplant, not 3 months. I don't know the science behind how a follicle behaves phase-wise after it's extracted and then transplanted, but regardless, it means that for normal anagen of the transplanted follicles to occur, a shed has to happen. So I don't know. I just am thrown by the claims. I understand that the data is just what the participants are claiming, which can be wrong, but I just really can't imagine how it can stop all hairfall even after 20 days like it says in the patent.
Not that it's all gloom and doom. Like I said, it could be that the people trialed weren't big shedders to begin with. Maybe the strengthening the lotion does on the current anagen follicles, which I believe can happen as quickly as claimed, made them tunnel vision on how good their hair feels and ignore the naturally high amount of shed they're still having. Who knows, I'm just trying to form conclusions based on the logic of what we already know about how hair works. Considering this lotion supposedly doesn't change anything about what we already know about the hair cycle, I was just curious about this detail that goes against the current understanding.