ok, i have to ask..

[hoping]

ya its pointless....

he really cant read.

 

[Felk]

Point 1

AGAIN READ THE PATENT the patent itself is not scientific proof the scientific eperiments EXPLAINED IN THE PATENT IS your scientific proof. God learn how to read before you reply

learn to read "retard"
.

This is the most pathetic attempt at scientific proof i have heard of. You need an independent clinical or scientific study before it's proven.

I'll say that one more time, even though i think lopfraze made it pretty clear - independent

 

[hoping]

http://www.retailing.org/new_site/docum ... cision.Doctor

reviewed by the BBB with your independant study....

i dont know why i even bothered to search...took me about 5 seconds to find...

i guess i actually have hope unlike the most of you who only believe in "science" even if a product works most of you dont believe it will unless its "FDA" approved or the big three....even with the big three your chances are always slim...but i guess some people have no hope and always critize products before trying it...sad part is when asked what the so call scam product does most people have no clue so they retaliate with a cap locks SCAM.

People always looking down on products being pestimistic instead of optimistic....then again pestimistic people always lose out.

 

[hairhaircomeagain]

Wow...How does it work..once every 90 days and it works...how the f*** ? Well if it works maan that stuff is fuckin crazy

 

[Felk]

http://www.retailing.org/new_site/documents/govaffairs/ERSP_Findings/youth_decision.Doctor

reviewed by the BBB with your independant study....

i dont know why i even bothered to search...took me about 5 seconds to find...

i guess i actually have hope unlike the most of you who only believe in "science" even if a product works most of you dont believe it will unless its "FDA" approved or the big three....even with the big three your chances are always slim...but i guess some people have no hope and always critize products before trying it...sad part is when asked what the so call scam product does most people have no clue so they retaliate with a cap locks SCAM.

People always looking down on products being pestimistic instead of optimistic....then again pestimistic people always lose out.

Well for one thing, it's just a written word document. Anyone could have written it.

For another its not a published medical study from PubMed or anything, in fact it's a written by the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. How could this pass for scientific evidence?

Lastly, and i think this is the most convincing

"According to the marketer, the studies used sample groups of a sufficient and reliable size and required that the test groups use the product as directed."

This entire study is based on the hearsay of the marketer of the product!

Also, this was the conclusion:

"ERSP determined that the studies on ProCede submitted by Youth Enhancement provided a reasonable basis for its core product performance and safety claims but, based upon the omission of comparative data in the case record, it was also recommended that the marketer discontinue its comparative performance claims."

Also -

"As such, it was determined that these comparative statements necessitate substantiating evidence as support." - Your own study, which you provided as scientific evidence, is asking for... scientific evidence!

Seems pretty convincing to me.

 

[Felk]

Oh yeah, and dont think im pessimistic. Of course i'd like to believe in these products, but unless there is evidence there is no point.

Search for some posts by me, and you will see i too attempt to spread positive thinking - it's so critical with something like hairloss, where the effects can be so easily exaggerated by your mind.

And anyway, there are far more important things in life to be positive about than hair loss drugs...

 

[hoping]

well the arguement isnt going anywhere...

felk thx for the civilized manner and intelligent replies.

Like all others before who try to convince people is hope i failed, but thats ok. its like religion you either believe or you dont

thx all and good luck with your treatments

btw HAIR IS MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shock:

 

[Lopfraze]

well the arguement isnt going anywhere...

...well actually it is. It's finishing in your defeat.

Like all others before who try to convince people is hope i failed, but thats ok.

I believe there is hope. I believe there is lots of hope. Proven treatments for one. And, more importantly, Hair Mulitplication. But you see, these things are based on good science, not the claims of conmen.

its like religion you either believe or you dont

No its not. It's not like religion, it's like science. That's because it is science.

 

[Bryan]

WRONG. Finasteride for hairloss was not "stumbled upon". It was specifically designed from the very beginning for various androgen-related problems, including balding.

Are you sure about that. I thought it was a side affect of Finasteride that helped balding men. Men reported hair growth whilst on the treatment.

I'm absolutely sure about that. You can read a study from the early-to-mid 1980's (before finasteride had even been first synthesized, most likely) in which Merck scientists were successfully testing topical 4-MA (an early precursor to finasteride) on stumptailed macaques for baldness. You can see them discussing the possible uses of such 5a-reductase inhibitors for a variety of androgen-related diseases, including acne, BPH, hirsutism, and male pattern baldness. They knew all about the potential use of such a drug for balding, so it definitely didn't come as any kind of "accidental discovery" or anything after finasteride came out! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Aplunk1]

Okay,

I just formulated a very long reply to this thread... but my browser crashed.

In any case,

Hoping, I think that your first 2 or 3 posts were genguinely good. They were challenging.

But in all honesty, you failed to really prove Procede as a viable treatment.

That document that you provided is worthless. It's not a study... there are no figures. It's simply an opinion.

Please, open a new thread:

1) Show us the PATENT and explain how it works.

2) Show us scientific evidence (preferably independent) proving that Procede works in any fashion.

3) Explain to us why we would benefit from Procede as a viable hairloss treatment.

Stop jerking off Lopfraze by trying to reword his words... He is using logic, and you aren't.

I'm going to agree with Lopfraze that Procede is indeed, for the time being, garbage that should be avoided by hairloss sufferers.

 

[Bryan]

I'm absolutely sure about that. You can read a study from the early-to-mid 1980's (before finasteride had even been first synthesized, most likely) in which Merck scientists were successfully testing topical 4-MA (an early precursor to finasteride) on stumptailed macaques for baldness. You can see them discussing the possible uses of such 5a-reductase inhibitors for a variety of androgen-related diseases, including acne, BPH, hirsutism, and male pattern baldness. They knew all about the potential use of such a drug for balding, so it definitely didn't come as any kind of "accidental discovery" or anything after finasteride came out! :wink:

Here's some more information on that same subject of whether or not finasteride for hairloss was some kind of "accidental discovery". The following was written by my friend "jrf" (BTW, he's a physician), and posted on HLH a while back:

Bryan is right--finasteride was CLEARLY designed to treat male pattern baldness. I wrote about this 5 years ago on this site, but I'm not sure the record is available.

To reiterate, the evidence is the following: Merck published a paper in the middle of May or June 1988 concerning the use of a precusor drug (4-MA; a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor) in preventing male pattern baldness in macaques (animal model for male pattern baldness in humans). The study was 20 months in length. As it takes about 6 months to 1 year after a paper is submitted until it gets published and Merck had to spend some time planning and writing the paper (a few months to a year), the scientists at Merck were clearly thinking about the use of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors in the early to mid 1980s. As finasteride was patented in 1984 (or about this time) and approved for used in BPH in 1992, its use in humans would not have occured in clinical trials until the late 1980's. In other words, the potential utility of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors in male pattern baldness was being discussed at Merck before a human ever took finasteride.

Bryan

 

[powersam]

i rub onions on my head and it has cured all my hairloss. to buy some of my onions PM me and i'll send you a box.

 

[hoping]

But in all honesty, you failed to really prove Procede as a viable treatment.

That document that you provided is worthless. It's not a study... there are no figures. It's simply an opinion.

.

If i/anyone was able to prove it works 100% we wouldnt be on page 4 now would we

the figure 10% significant difference between control vs placebo is a figure isnt it? but of course your going to tell me that the independant study done is false.

as for science and religion ill leave that alone since it goes both ways simple google search for "science religion" brings up tons of debates.

anyways I did not end in my defeat, i was defeated the second i said procede was not a scam. Why? because no one believes anything anyless its FDA approved....i simplely stated that people who have not tried it should not comment on it specially when there are more then handful of people including me that it works. They also should not bash on an product without knowledge of the product. They should not yell scam as soon as a new product comes out which i know most of you guys as soon as you heard about any product would scream scam. Most of us that have tried it are at the end of our line with FDA drugs, and yes half of us failed with it but the other half succeeded. The half that failed got their money back and is generally happy.

please stop responding to this thread as i wont reply to it.

i will however open a new thread as requested on a new discussion on procede and hope it turns out better thx everyone.

 

[iamnaked]

You dogs don't know when you've been tossed a bone.

Procede sucks worse than the fetish gimp-master. It's about as trustworthy as an amphetamine-dosed wolf dressed up as your granny.

But by all means try it. I am all in favour of idiot taxes.

 

[Aplunk1]

Nizoral isn't FDA-approved for hairloss, yet we use it anyway.

So much for your notion that people only use FDA-proven products in treating their hairloss.