nano shampoo

[techprof]

47thin,

I believe Dr. Proctor's products work.

In my opinion, at the very least he can say the % of various sods, nano in his prox-n and nano shampoo to get more customers. I am sure he uses enough for therepeutic response, but is it 0.001% or 1%

Tricomin went through FDA tests. But they don't convey the % in its spray. Folligen says the %age.

If Dr. Proctor gives approximate %age, he will get more customers. I can understand why he can't go through FDA tests, but what is the difficulty in conveying an approximate %age of active ingredients (I know that he changes this, but a range is sufficient).

 

[Bryan]

47thin,

Tricomin went through FDA tests. But they don't convey the % in its spray. Folligen says the %age.

Considering the cheap, low-tech way that Dr. Pickart produces his smorgasbord of copper-peptides (wow, I haven't used that expression in years! ), I'm not surprised at all that he would reveal the amount of them in Folligen, and milk it for all it's worth. But it doesn't seem fair, does it? :shakehead:

 

[47thin]

Tricomin made it through 2 of the 3 tests. I would think it failed or was at least unimpressive. There is, despite what people try to clam otherwise, a decent market for something that does not have cardiovascular side effects. If it worked as well as 2% rogaine, it would capture decent market share.

Anyway, I have only seen one sample of NANO working, a poorly shot picture on Dr Proctor's website. IF he really was going to go all out, he'd offer to test , say 100 balding men, free of charge. Yes, it might cost him, what $ 10,000, but if it worked, he would be selling it in every beauty supply shop across the world.

I went through 6 bottles, with no effect. While that is anecdotal, if you had 100's of positive- I mean "I grew hair on this stuff alone!" anecdotes, that would be great. Try finding half a dozen on this website of long term, NANO only users.

 

[Bryan]

Tricomin made it through 2 of the 3 tests. I would think it failed or was at least unimpressive. There is, despite what people try to clam otherwise, a decent market for something that does not have cardiovascular side effects. If it worked as well as 2% rogaine, it would capture decent market share.

As I recall, it _did_ have results (in haircounts) that were of the same general order as 2% Rogaine. They didn't continue with further FDA testing for the simple reason that they didn't have the money!

BTW, Rogaine is considered a big disappointment in the marketplace, so I don't think it's saying much that Tricomin "...would capture decent market share" if it were common knowledge that it works about as well as Rogaine.

 

[techprof]

47thin,

Tricomin went through FDA tests. But they don't convey the % in its spray. Folligen says the %age.

Considering the cheap, low-tech way that Dr. Pickart produces his smorgasbord of copper-peptides (wow, I haven't used that expression in years! ), I'm not surprised at all that he would reveal the amount of them in Folligen, and milk it for all it's worth. But it doesn't seem fair, does it? :shakehead:

Bryan, I agree with you about folligen. Dr. Pickart uses a cheap peptide, so he is milking it by claiming the composition.

I am not expecting prox-n to have a very high %. However, it probably has more effective ingredients. For buyers, it would help to see the %. There is also a confusion regarding a cheap version from lef. Is the prox-n sold in lef diluted according to the price? Dr. Proctor claims that to be a better deal. Personally I have found lef version to be very inferior compared to his prox-n from his site in terms of effectiveness.

If he lists the % to be 1% to 0.01% from ingredient 1 to ingredient 10 it will help. If you can, please convince him to do this. I can understand that he is worried about copycats in the market, but I am confident that no one can beat his price considering all the ingredients he puts in his products.

 

[47thin]

I'm thinking Rogaine foam is a success. I've seen it directly in my own family, where they would never consider buying the drip version. Maybe it is a triumph of marketing.

At the same time, maybe your right. Why do studies on any of these products. Buyer beware, correct.

 

[pproctor]

Comments in no particular order

1. SOD's are hair growth stimulators. I found this and so did (e.g.) l'oreal and Procter and Gamble, who have also have patents in this area, mostly on copper peptides, etc. The SOD class I have come to prefer is the Nitroxide spin-labels, particularly TEMPO and TEMPOL and their derivatives. TEMPOL (which we use in pretty much all our products ) is currently in trials for radiation-induced hair loss. See http://www.mitos.com It works and not much else does. BTW, I hold the primary patents on all this stuff.

2. We have been screening hair-loss treatment agents for roughly 26 years and by now pretty much know what works and what does not. My nine patents inhibit the use of wide swaths of effective agents except my me. On the other hand, we can use pretty much whatever we want.

3. We claim no miracles-- This is one reason we have reasonably-generous warranties for our non-prescription agents. But if something works and has a low incidence of side-effects, we tend to use it. I really hate it when our stuff does not work. I also tend to be pretty open about other stuff that also works such as ketoconazole and (probably) some kinds of laser light.

4. It is true that double blind-placebo-controlled trials are best. Haven't seen a lot of those recently in the hair loss treatment area recently, have you?

Reason is that the cost for a full-blown trial typically runs to $500 million or more and the drug companies don't see enough market to justify the expense. So we are thrown back on the old crossover methods that were used to develop most drugs before about 1960 or so. These were responsible for the golden age of drug development between about 1935 to 1960 or so, when ( probably not coincidentally ) new drug development slowed. So they work pretty well.

Interestingly, I was involved periperally when a drug from the class that I have patent claims too was in clinical trials for stroke. Damn-fool drug company screwed things up. See our published comments at: http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/conte ... 38/10/e109

Peter H. Proctor, PhD,MD

 

[billythekid]

Alpecin Shampoo! I checked out their website. Interesting. Which one did you use? I see they have many different.

im fairly sure it was the C1 version. it didn't stop my hairline from receding, though it may have slowed it.

 

[47thin]

Doctor Proctor, you are saying TEMPOL is in NANO? Also, you have not addressed why any of these products are so expensive, and don't list the %'s.

My understanding is that TEMPOL is being tested for radiation induced hair loss, not male pattern baldness. My 80 year old dad went through chemo, lost some hair, then got it back, which I understand is pretty typical, if you survive it.

 

[pproctor]

Doctor Proctor, you are saying TEMPOL is in NANO? Also, you have not addressed why any of these products are so expensive, and don't list the %'s.

My understanding is that TEMPOL is being tested for radiation induced hair loss, not male pattern baldness. My 80 year old dad went through chemo, lost some hair, then got it back, which I understand is pretty typical, if you survive it.

Dr Proctor sniffs: I'm pretty open, but: Our products are the result of 25 years of development and the formulations are proprietary, as well as patented. Go ask Intel for the design of their latest masks, while you are at it. Or for that matter ask any shampoo manufacturer for the exact ingredient concentrations of their shampoos.

As for the rest-- true, chemotherapy-induced hair loss generally grows back, but radiation-induced hair loss often does not. Similarly, as with pattern loss, loss in chemo and radiation is often from the telogen phase, where superoxide seems to be the cellular messenger. See, e.g.,

Chadha V, Shenoi SD., Hair loss in cancer chemotherapeutic patients. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2003 Mar-Apr;69(2):131-2.
"The hair loss in 8 cancer patients aged between 18 and 60 years on chemotherapy was studied. All had diffuse moderate alopecia within 1 month of starting treatment. Of the 8, 3 had only telogen hairs and 3 had high dystrophic hair count. Both anagen and telogen effluvium are implicated."

Peter H. Proctor, PhD,MD

 

[47thin]

No offense doctor Proctor, but I wouldn't put your products up with Intel's.

Here is the problem. After a quick search, I don't see any success stories with Prox-N or NANO alone. Period. Seeing as we can't do large scale tests, I had to look at the 400 entries and see none were regarding prox-n alone or NANO. There were only a few saying they may try Prox-N or one that had used PRox-N along with everything else.

I'm not saying you are a quack, or that you are selling some YOU don't believe in, but honestly, I see more positive reviews for Nioxin than NANO on Amazon's website, as well. That doesn't mean Nioxin works, either, but you get my drift.

I wish your stuff worked either really well, or was cheap enough to do a long term trial. I have a feeling that you have a lot of 2 or 3 bottle orders, and that's it. They give up and move on to the next thing.

 

[pproctor]

No offense doctor Proctor, but I wouldn't put your products up with Intel's.

Here is the problem. After a quick search, I don't see any success stories with Prox-N or NANO alone. Period. Seeing as we can't do large scale tests, I had to look at the 400 entries and see none were regarding prox-n alone or NANO. There were only a few saying they may try Prox-N or one that had used PRox-N along with everything else.

I'm not saying you are a quack, or that you are selling some YOU don't believe in, but honestly, I see more positive reviews for Nioxin than NANO on Amazon's website, as well. That doesn't mean Nioxin works, either, but you get my drift.

I wish your stuff worked either really well, or was cheap enough to do a long term trial. I have a feeling that you have a lot of 2 or 3 bottle orders, and that's it. They give up and move on to the next thing.

I am originally a PhD, Pharmacologist-toxicologist. We are the people who develop drugs for drug companies. Which is why I can point out how AstraZeneca messed up their NXY-059 stroke trial by cleaning up their formulation, as noted below. PhD pharmacologists with MD's are vanishingly rare and in great demand. I could find lots of other things to do if I wanted too.

Most persons use our non-prescription products along with something else. Although they have since gone thru numerous refinements, Prox-N and later NANO shampoo were originally formulated back when minoxidil was a prescription agent and were so that people cound get the advantage of our technology without using our prescription formulations. This is in line with my often-expressed fonding that individual agents don't work all that well. The trick is to use multiple agents that work in different ways.

E.g., by itself, NANO seems about as effective as 2% minoxidil and will work in persons whom that treatment has failed. It likely works in a different way from minoxidil and so is additive and possibly synergistic. Same with (e.g.) SOD's, etc. This is well-confirmed by the fact (e.g.) Loreal and Shisedo have patents on variations on this technology which they cannot use. Fact is, the major pharmaceutical companies have abandoned this area. If you are going to get new technology, it is going to be from companies like ours or (say) Dr Lee's.

Interestingly, L'Oreal markets something called "Nanoworks" which contains an SOD. Skirting both our trademark and our patents, they very carefully avoid claiming that this grows hair. But looking at their patent portfolio, it is clear that they know it does.

As for Nioxin. You picked a bad example--- It does work some. So many things work at least a little that it is difficult to get something that does not work some. The classic example is propylene glycol, which seems to account for roughly half of the growth from 2% minoxidil solutions. So considering the enormous amounts sold, it is no surprise it gets occasional endorsments.

Peter H. Proctor, PhD,MD

 

[techprof]

No offense doctor Proctor, but I wouldn't put your products up with Intel's.

Here is the problem. After a quick search, I don't see any success stories with Prox-N or NANO alone. Period. Seeing as we can't do large scale tests, I had to look at the 400 entries and see none were regarding prox-n alone or NANO. There were only a few saying they may try Prox-N or one that had used PRox-N along with everything else.

I'm not saying you are a quack, or that you are selling some YOU don't believe in, but honestly, I see more positive reviews for Nioxin than NANO on Amazon's website, as well. That doesn't mean Nioxin works, either, but you get my drift.

I wish your stuff worked either really well, or was cheap enough to do a long term trial. I have a feeling that you have a lot of 2 or 3 bottle orders, and that's it. They give up and move on to the next thing.

I am originally a PhD, Pharmacologist-toxicologist. We are the people who develop drugs for drug companies. Which is why I can point out how AstraZeneca messed up their NXY-059 stroke trial by cleaning up their formulation, as noted below. PhD pharmacologists with MD's are vanishingly rare and in great demand. I could find lots of other things to do if I wanted too.

Most persons use our non-prescription products along with something else. Although they have since gone thru numerous refinements, Prox-N and later NANO shampoo were originally formulated back when minoxidil was a prescription agent and were so that people cound get the advantage of our technology without using our prescription formulations. This is in line with my often-expressed fonding that individual agents don't work all that well. The trick is to use multiple agents that work in different ways.

E.g., by itself, NANO seems about as effective as 2% minoxidil and will work in persons whom that treatment has failed. It likely works in a different way from minoxidil and so is additive and possibly synergistic. Same with (e.g.) SOD's, etc. This is well-confirmed by the fact (e.g.) Loreal and Shisedo have patents on variations on this technology which they cannot use. Fact is, the major pharmaceutical companies have abandoned this area. If you are going to get new technology, it is going to be from companies like ours or (say) Dr Lee's.

Interestingly, L'Oreal markets something called "Nanoworks" which contains an SOD. Skirting both our trademark and our patents, they very carefully avoid claiming that this grows hair. But looking at their patent portfolio, it is clear that they know it does.

As for Nioxin. You picked a bad example--- It does work some. So many things work at least a little that it is difficult to get something that does not work some. The classic example is propylene glycol, which seems to account for roughly half of the growth from 2% minoxidil solutions. So considering the enormous amounts sold, it is no surprise it gets occasional endorsments.

Peter H. Proctor, PhD,MD

Dr. Proctor, please don't compare your products with Nioxin and downgrade your products. We have no doubts that your products work. But you have to understand that there are so many scam artists out there playing on the sufferer's weakness.

There are patents for topical finasteride, azelaic acid, and millions of things claiming hair growth and for hair loss. I personally don't value the patents at all.

I value your products, opinions more than your patents. If patents were the way to go by, there should be no baldies out there in the world.

 

[pproctor]

Not comparing our products to Nioxin. Just making the point that lots of things grow some hair on some people and Nioxin is probably one of these. The real trick is getting cosmetic growth in significant percentage of persons.

BTW, he says modestly, check out this link: http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/proctor . One thread of the line of research that eventually got me into this area also resulted in the development of the first organic polymer electronic device. This gadget is now on the short "Smithsonianchips" list ( http://smithsonianchips.si.edu ) of historic advances in semiconductor technology.

Peter H. Proctor, PhD,MD

 

[47thin]

It's neat, but will your semi conductor grow back hair!?

 

[pproctor]

It's neat, but will your semi conductor grow back hair!?

Good question. The pigment in skin spots or "nevi" is melanin. This is the same material as in our pioneering electronic device, now in the Smithsonian's electrical collection. One type of nevus is called a "hairy nevus".

Ya see that pigmented "freckle" with extra hair. That's a hairy nevus. Now, why is all that hair growing out of it ? Could it have something to do with the fact the nevus is melanin-pigmented ?

Peter H. Proctor, PhD,MD