NANO

[hair today gone tomorrow]

What is the general consensus here about dr. p's NANO? A read a lot of people saying that it SHOULD be helpful but not many here are using it. Is it not worth the money?

 

[hair_tomorrow]

I used it for a year or 2.

Very nice shampoo. Provided a cosmetic thickening effect.

Didn't help w/ my hairloss or regrowth.

But if you're in need of a shampoo and don't know which one to get - by all means - check it out for yourself. Might be of some benefit.

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

I used it for a year or 2.

Very nice shampoo. Provided a cosmetic thickening effect.

Didn't help w/ my hairloss or regrowth.

But if you're in need of a shampoo and don't know which one to get - by all means - check it out for yourself. Might be of some benefit.

thanks for you input...no offense but its more of the same though. I guess NANO just isnt that proven. I mean if it worked well enough Im sure many members here would be using it.

 

[hair_tomorrow]

I'd bet that a LOT of forum members are using it. When it comes right down to it - there aren't many credible hairloss shampoos out there.

Nano has always had a big following - but I don't recall anyone attributing regrowth to it.

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

I'd bet that a LOT of forum members are using it. When it comes right down to it - there aren't many credible hairloss shampoos out there.

Nano has always had a big following - but I don't recall anyone attributing regrowth to it.

Oh okay, its just that I dont see in many regimens. I mean if A LOT of people are using it and NO ONE has attributed regrowth...what does that say? haha...

 

[Bryan]

Chuck Frasher has posted here on a number of occasions about the benefits he got from NANO shampoo. He says it definitely helped him.

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

Chuck Frasher has posted here on a number of occasions about the benefits he got from NANO shampoo. He says it definitely helped him.

wow, 1 outta thousands...i think i like my chances...haha

 

[Bryan]

Few people would use NANO Shampoo alone, I imagine. Anybody with enough snap to know about it in the first place is probably going to be using it as part of a more complete program that incorporates other agents. But Chuck _did_ use it alone, for whatever reason, and he said that it clearly was beneficial for him. You can also see before-and-after pics on Dr. Proctor's Web site of a NANO Shampoo user. Dr. Proctor says emphatically that NANO works the way he says it does, and that it's rather similar to minoxidil.

 

[Bryan]

I should also add that even Dr. Proctor said once on alt.baldspot that NANO Shampoo is probably his most "cost-effective" product. That says quite a bit, doesn't it?

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

Few people would use NANO Shampoo alone, I imagine. Anybody with enough snap to know about it in the first place is probably going to be using it as part of a more complete program that incorporates other agents. But Chuck _did_ use it alone, for whatever reason, and he said that it clearly was beneficial for him. You can also see before-and-after pics on Dr. Proctor's Web site of a NANO Shampoo user. Dr. Proctor says emphatically that NANO works the way he says it does, and that it's rather similar to minoxidil.

Just to play devil's advocate if its as effective as minoxidil and its much EASIER to use than minoxidil...why are people still bothering with minoxidil applications 2 a day? I think it would be easier to use a shampoo a few times a week? no?

 

[lucy923]

anyone know if nano, if operates similar to minoxidil, causes a shed just like minoxidil??

 

[Bryan]

Just to play devil's advocate if its as effective as minoxidil and its much EASIER to use than minoxidil...why are people still bothering with minoxidil applications 2 a day? I think it would be easier to use a shampoo a few times a week? no?

First of all, I want you to understand that when you titled this thread simply "NANO" and then wrote this in your first post: "What is the general consensus here about dr. p's NANO?", that was very ambiguous. I didn't know if you were referring to just the chemical called NANO (nicotinic acid N-oxide), or if you were referring to the use of NANO in various hairloss topicals like Proxiphen or Prox-N or NANO Conditioner, or if you were referring to NANO Shampoo specifically. After reading the first few posts, I decided that you were probably referring to the shampoo.

I'm not totally sure myself what Dr. Proctor specifically means when he says that the effect of NANO is similar to minoxidil; I don't know if he thinks that simply using NANO Shampoo 2-3 times a week is about as good as using Rogaine, or if he means that using it as a daily topical IN ADDITION to using the shampoo is what's required for it to be as effective as using Rogaine. That's something that would be a good thing to email him and ask him about! :wink: But NANO appears to be the main growth stimulant that he uses in his products. It's in both prescription Proxiphen and over-the-counter Prox-N. He says that he designed NANO Shampoo for the express purpose of allowing a user to get some additional NANO to his scalp, more than just what he'd get using Proxiphen or Prox-N.

But to answer your question directly: people are still bothering with minoxidil applications 2 times a day for rather obvious reasons: relatively few people have ever even heard of NANO; and Dr. Proctor's products (the ones with NANO) are fairly expensive.

Bryan

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

Just to play devil's advocate if its as effective as minoxidil and its much EASIER to use than minoxidil...why are people still bothering with minoxidil applications 2 a day? I think it would be easier to use a shampoo a few times a week? no?

First of all, I want you to understand that when you titled this thread simply "NANO" and then wrote this in your first post: "What is the general consensus here about dr. p's NANO?", that was very ambiguous. I didn't know if you were referring to just the chemical called NANO (nicotinic acid N-oxide), or if you were referring to the use of NANO in various hairloss topicals like Proxiphen or Prox-N or NANO Conditioner, or if you were referring to NANO Shampoo specifically. After reading the first few posts, I decided that you were probably referring to the shampoo.

I'm not totally sure myself what Dr. Proctor specifically means when he says that the effect of NANO is similar to minoxidil; I don't know if he thinks that simply using NANO Shampoo 2-3 times a week is about as good as using Rogaine, or if he means that using it as a daily topical IN ADDITION to using the shampoo is what's required for it to be as effective as using Rogaine. That's something that would be a good thing to email him and ask him about! :wink: But NANO appears to be the main growth stimulant that he uses in his products. It's in both prescription Proxiphen and over-the-counter Prox-N. He says that he designed NANO Shampoo for the express purpose of allowing a user to get some additional NANO to his scalp, more than just what he'd get using Proxiphen or Prox-N.

But to answer your question directly: people are still bothering with minoxidil applications 2 times a day for rather obvious reasons: relatively few people have ever even heard of NANO; and Dr. Proctor's products (the ones with NANO) are fairly expensive.

Bryan

You are right, Im sorry. I was referring to the shampoo. I still have my doubts that using this shampoo 4-6 times a week will produce similar results to using rogaine foam 2x a day. However, I just wanted to see if any other members here have had any results using it. I was sure that you would endorse it along with the rest of dr. proctors products. It seems as though you think VERY HIGHLY of dr. proctor for some unkown reason.

 

[Bryan]

It seems as though you think VERY HIGHLY of dr. proctor for some unkown reason.

The reason I like his products isn't "unknown" at all. It's because I know they WORK. You can see my 2-year before-and-after pictures from using Prox-N right here on this site.

Bryan

 

[Riordan]

Bryan, are you using the presciption Nano? I wonder why proctor requires prescription for that if it's just similar to minoxidil and minoxidil can be bought wo prescr. are there any ingreds there that could be give possible side effects maybe?

 

[Bryan]

"Prescription Nano"?? Are you referring to Proxiphen? That requires a prescription because it contains the drugs spironolactone, phenytoin, and Retin-A.

 

[Sean68]

in the prox-n instructions he says its good to use in conjunction with minoxidil
so id imagine the same would go for nano. i dont think nano should be
used as a minoxidil substitute though.it is just a shampoo albeit a good one
by many accounts.

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

in the prox-n instructions he says its good to use in conjunction with minoxidil
so id imagine the same would go for nano. i dont think nano should be
used as a minoxidil substitute though.it is just a shampoo albeit a good one
by many accounts.

so i shouldnt use NANO if i dont plan on using minoxidil with it?

 

[Bryan]

in the prox-n instructions he says its good to use in conjunction with minoxidil so id imagine the same would go for nano.

In fact, he has said on alt.baldspot that there is evidence for a synergistic effect between NANO and minoxidil. Wish I could find that old post of his.

 

[Old Baldy]

Doctor Proctor wrote:

In article <7tvn82> a...@my-deja.com writes:
>From: a...@my-deja.com
>Subject: Re: Dr. P - NANO?
>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:22:46 GMT
>just a quick question... since both minoxidil and NANO replace the same agent,
>NO, in the scalp, why does proxiphen contain minoxidil and not more NANO,


It contains both. NANO probably has different properties from minoxidil,
since the agents seem to be somewhat synergistic.

since this would make it non-prescription?? is there a difference between
these two??


Yes. For one thing, unlike minoxidil, NANO does not dialate blood
vessels in aNO-like manner. So it may have a somewhat different mechanism
of action from minoxidil, tho I suspect at least some overlap. NANO is
actually rather like spin traps such as PBN and so may have a similar activity to them in some ways.

BTW, saying two agents are probable NO agonists does not
mean their mechanisms of action or activities are the nessarily identical,
tho it does imply some over lap.. NO does a lot of fifferent things in
different places and their can be enormous differences dictated by the
differing pharmacology of the agents.


Peter H. Proctor, PhD, MD

Nicotinic acid N-Oxide is interesting stuff isn't it?