Tricomin

[Bryan]

I already told everybody in plain English that it's just sombebody's idea of a joke!

 

[John Yossarian]

Finfighter,

Could you reveal how much copper peptides is in Tricomin? I know you said that your friend told you to keep quiet, but could you at least give us a hint? I'm kinda curious.

Thanks.

 

[beaner]

Because I was advised by a friend (who is a PHD/MD biochemist) not to give specific details.

I don't get it. The whole point of this was for us to find out the true percentage in Tricomin. I cannot imagine a reason why we can't have specific details. That makes no sense. I'm not sticking up for Bryan, but unless you release the details, he hasn't been proven wrong just because you said so.

 

[beaner]

Because I was advised by a friend (who is a PHD/MD biochemist) not to give specific details.

I don't get it. The whole point of this was for us to find out the true percentage in Tricomin. I cannot imagine a reason why we can't have specific details. That makes no sense. I'm not sticking up for Bryan, but unless you release the details, he hasn't been proven wrong just because you said so.

The tester is concerned he could be sued, if you don't understand that then hire someone to do your own test, otherwise keep drinking the corporate blue kool aid.

Hey no reason for you to be a f*****g a**h**. I think EVERYONE in this thread wanted the answer. You said you had it tested and then refused to give results with absolutely no good reason why. How was that at all helpful to anyone? I never believe it had 1% anyway, but until you actually posted those results above, you didn't really prove your case to anyone here, but still felt the need to gloat.

 

[Bryan]

I guess it's time for the poster "UunoTurhapuro" to contact Procyte again, and tell them what was reported to us by the person who did the "test". I imagine he knows the name (maybe even the email address) of the "product manager" who told us that Tricomin has a 1% concentration of the peptide. Time to take this to the next step!

 

[beaner]

No beaner I never had it tested I decided not to, someone else did it instead when they saw this debate and posted the results on another forum, but they asked to be kept confidential.

I did misread your other post on the matter. I thought that you had it tested and were refusing to give the results.

At least now we have a fairly good idea of the cp content of the stuff. I haven't used it in years but I did love the way it made my hair look cosmetically after applying. Looks like that might be about all it's good for.

 

[Bryan]

Well that's the thing the person who did the test and shared this information, is not known is he? So procyte wont care it's just an internet rumor to them. Like I said I had originally thought I might have it tested but I did not, someone else did it themselves once they heard about it, and that person is not associated or connected with me in anyway.

Looks like it's becoming less and less likely that we'll ever have a definitive answer for all this...

 

[Jacob]

Can't you ppl READ? :dunno:

Initial result has come back at 0.2% +/- 0.05%

Therefor between 0.15% and 0.25%

Hence the reason for the blue dye!

And no I'm not confirming anything or ellaborating on anything or giving any details about the tester or where or how or whatever and I don't care if I have no evidence of this, but I am not lying and I think most will realise this apart from those who don't realise that if you put blue dye in a substance that should already be blue then you must not have much of that substance to begin with, if any!! :whistle:

 

[Bryan]

Can't you ppl READ? :dunno:

Initial result has come back at 0.2% +/- 0.05%

Therefor between 0.15% and 0.25%

Hence the reason for the blue dye!

And no I'm not confirming anything or ellaborating on anything or giving any details about the tester or where or how or whatever and I don't care if I have no evidence of this, but I am not lying and I think most will realise this apart from those who don't realise that if you put blue dye in a substance that should already be blue then you must not have much of that substance to begin with, if any!! :whistle:

Jacob, look up the word "speculation" in a dictionary.

Who was the person who did that test? We know not who.
What were the technical qualifications of the person who did the testing? We have no idea.
What were the specific techniques he used in the test? Again, we have no idea.
Who was more accurate: the guy who did this test, or the guy at Procyte who gave us a completely different figure? No EARTLY idea.
And the meaning of the word "speculation" is...?

 

[Jacob]

Speculation? You mean like anything anybody can say about Proctor and his products?

As finasteride said some time ago...if the results proved you wrong you'd whine about something.

 

[Paulgreer]

Haha Bryan is still trying to deny!

 

[powersam]

Who was more accurate: the guy who did this test, or the guy at Procyte who gave us a completely different figure?

Great question Bryan, and the answer is, the one who has the least commercial incentive to deceive.

 

[rill]

If you look at it from Bryans point of view he actually has a point

Personally I belive that the guy who did the test of tricomin sounded credible, Im not a chemist but the way he described the test sounded resonable and like he knew what he was doing, on the other hand if somebody said that somebody knew someone that did a test and that was all I knew I would be sceptical as well.

To think I wasted 100-200 bucks on a blue dye pisses me off :sobbing:

 

[hairhoper]

Anyone with eyes can tell that the 1% claim by Procyte is completely ludicrous.

That Bryan is even attempting to defend it with spurious second hand accounts via some sales rep means his integrity left the equation a long time ago.

The ~0.2% result makes total sense to me, it's just appalling that they've got away with selling this snake oil sh*t for so long.

 

[Bryan]

Personally I belive that the guy who did the test of tricomin sounded credible, Im not a chemist but the way he described the test sounded resonable and like he knew what he was doing...

Where did he "describe" the test?

 

[Jacob]

Personally I belive that the guy who did the test of tricomin sounded credible, Im not a chemist but the way he described the test sounded resonable and like he knew what he was doing...

Where did he "describe" the test?

I don't know, but here's Dr. Proctor's comprehensive 3 year study on Prox in the early 80's:

 

[Bryan]

Good one Jacob! Lol, where's the research for Dr. Proctor's products Bryan????

It's in his YEARS of experience with those products.

 

[Jacob]

Good one Jacob! Lol, where's the research for Dr. Proctor's products Bryan????

It's in his YEARS of experience with those products.

That's not what he claimed....I mean LIED about:

In a comprehensive 3 year clinical study

EXACTLY what snake-oilr's say/do.

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=72201

 

[Bryan]

It's in his YEARS of experience with those products.

That's not what he claimed....I mean LIED about:

In a comprehensive 3 year clinical study

EXACTLY what snake-oilr's say/do.

What on earth are you talking about?? :dunno: You said yourself that that ad appeared in 1986. Unless my simple arithmetic fails me, 1986 was 26 years ago. When I talked about his "YEARS of experience", I was referring to TODAY and more recent years, not necessarily the year 1986 (although it was possibly true, even waaaay back then).

 

[Jacob]

26 years of B.S. There was no "comprehensive 3 year clinical study" prior to the release of Prox back then, nor has there been anything since. 26 YEARS of experience being a snake-oil salesman.

Bryan is a shill for Proctor and his products. He's been shill 'n spam'n the crap for 15+ years. There are plenty of doctors with hair loss products out there. With patents on their ingreds/products as well. In fact, one of those doctors..Dr. Lee..for all these years.. has been bashed and ridiculed and questioned by Bryan. Bryan wants us to just trust and believe Proctor because he's a Dr, but isn't consistent when it comes to other Drs. There is no evidence for Proctor's/Bryan's claims or wishes. Not only has Proctor not said which specific cu peptides are used, but he and Bryan also talk about "mysterious ingredients" that are not in the ingreds list(s). Snake-oil talk that is supposed to get you even more excited about the products. The same goes for their- "better bang for the buck" talk regarding getting the non-prescription products from places outside of Proctor's website. They want you to believe those cheaper versions are lite/watered-down...are you really going to purchase a lite/watered-down version of a product for something so difficult to treat as male pattern baldness? Buy the "more potent" crap directly from Proctor and he makes a bit more money. For all the reasons above..he should have been laughed out of these forums years ago.

Proxiphen NANO Prox Proctor Bryan SPAM Shill garbage crap snake oil no evidence