- Reaction score
- 461
Doesn't need to be; there is literally no doubt that they will do absolutely JAK sh*t for Androgenetic Alopecia
A guy took oral JAK, got his hair back from AA but had like a NW4 pattern.
Neal Walker's explanation for this was some BS about how "Topical JAK will better reach the follicle because oral drugs don't" or something along those lines.
Which, as Swoop has thoroughly explained here: Is horseshit.
There is no shortage of studies out there showing how oral drugs have no problem reaching as far as the outermost layers of the skin. Finasteride does it, oral minoxidil does, acne medications obviously do, and even JAK inhibitors do.
Case closed; if JAK inhibitors were going to work for Androgenetic Alopecia, we would have definitely seen it by now in male patients with Androgenetic Alopecia who were also treated for AA — JAK is a cope.
Lastly, I've repeatedly asked proponents of it to explain to me how, after fibrosis has set in and your little follicles have gone to hell, how JAK or other topicals are going to create new follicles to replace them and the best I've got is "durr, I'm not educating you!" in 3-paragraph-long rants when the answer to my question should take 3 sentences at most.
Not only will oral equivalent to minoxidil ''reach as far as the outermost layers of the skin'', but will prolly also outdo the topical version actually. As is with finasteride, tretinoin etc. We have so much evidence and anecdotes on this that I'm baffled by the fact we are still talkinig about JAK in case of Androgenetic Alopecia. I too would like the reality to be different, but it is what it is...