Ih 6 + laser helmet
 New Member Total Posts: 8 Member Since: |
March 03, 2010, 12:19 AM Hey guys do you think ih6 supplements and laser helmet work synergistically or counter each other’s effects? |
 Editor Total Posts: 112 Member Since: |
[ # 1 ] March 03, 2010, 12:40 AM I would say they hit hairloss from different angles and in so doing create a synergy that works against your hairloss. They definitely don’t counter each others actions. I’m sure OMG and IH can shed more detail. Laser stimulates SOD, fights inflammation and calcification, increases microcirculation. Supplements balance hormones, increase antioxidant levels and fight inflammation. And there is more from both I’m sure I’m forgetting. Used in tandem though, you’ve got a pretty good chance at throwing a monkeywrench in the progression of your MPB. |
|
Zeroth Law of Robotics:
|
 Editor Total Posts: 391 Member Since: |
[ # 2 ] March 03, 2010, 06:37 PM ABSOLUTELY! DM5 is right -at least that is what my belief is! I don’t have much proof of that at this point, but we are setting it up very soon so WE’LL KNOW for a fact! We’re going to establish an official protocol involving this, and we are going to keep good track of those participating in it -like we did with laser therapy on the old sites. It’s not really an accident that Immortal, Joe the Zix Guy, Nidhogge and I and partners in this site… we really do believe in each other’s work, and for the most part they are systemically “non-competing treatments” (I’ll explain what I mean in a second) and can fit together. We talk about it quite a bit on the phone -actually, we have for the past two years, with a giant upswing of communication since about August ‘09- and we feel that together we probably have a protocol that puts us past the “seventh inning stretch” of this ball game, maybe even into the eight or ninth inning. Well, the eight or ninth inning of the FIRST GAME… this is a double-header, and the entire second ballgame has to do with getting the word out through the minefield of a lot of unethical people! lol… You think those same DUMBASSES with financial interests that got in the way of laser therapy are going to let this info get out if it works?? “Non-competing treatments” is a term I’ve started to use to describe the different angles that DM5 was talking about. Anybody with a lot of hair loss experience knows that whenever you try the kitchen sink approach it never works. I think when you use similar types of treatments, they can cancel each other out -or SOMETHING. Whatever the reason, it just never works when you do a crap load of things. Ask anyone! lol… You put multiple topicals on your head and you get nothing, you start mixing a lot of internals, and you get nothing. Etc., etc., etc. So, the way I see it is that there is (for the lack of a better term) a mechanical angle, an internal angle, and a topical angle (among some others I haven’t thought of, I’m sure) -and these angles are so different from each other that there would be very little chance of interference with the other angles. The topical angle can be subdivided a bit with “leave on”, “pre-shower”, or “wash out” -maybe even “am” and “pm”, but I’m going to try to keep it simple. Thank god, Immortal has tackled the internal angle pretty well because I know as much about internals as he does about wiring Laser Messiahs! He’s pretty much ironed out the best non-competing internals that work together well, and he’s on top of research to the point that the second something looks good, he’ll know about it and add it -replacing members of his “top six” if he has to. As soon as Joe the Zix Guy gets off of his ass and adds bayberry extract -something that has shown to reduce DHT NINTEY PERCENT on contact- to his hairmuck formula, that will be one of the most effective DHT blocking topicals out there. His SuperZix formula has already caught the eye of some top researchers, and some are already emulating it. This is an excellent leave-in formula. The “pre-shower” topicals that everyone should be using are something clay based or something with a poly60/poly80/alcohol mix (similar to the leave-in “Helsinki Formula”, but cutting to the chase and using it for what it is good for). These two things serve one purpose… remove excess grease and sebum from the follicle. Does it remove excess DHT? I doubt it, but manufacturers claim that it does. I can’t prove it either way, but using this before laser sessions is invaluable. With the mechanical aspect, this would obviously include a full coverage laser device, but I think we need to look into broadening that also. I’m talking about electrical devices, etc., that we could perhaps use on non-laser days. Don’t “poo poo” this idea yet… this stuff has been shown to give results, and one thing is for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN -NO ONE, not you, not me, not anyone, can say for sure that these electro devices DON’T WORK. The fact is -just like full coverage laser devices- no one has ever tried them in the forums on any sort of large scale with a set usage regimen at all to see if they worked. If you can remember back that far, try to remember what the perception of lasers was in 2006 before Steve the Searcher and myself put it in everyone’s head something like a “laser helmet” would be necessary to get decent results. People said the same thing about lasers as they do with electro devices now! Any criticisms of electro devices (and claims of success for that matter) are purely hypothetical because there isn’t a real solid body of real evidence to go off of yet. We are in the equivalent of “pre-laser helmet days” with pretty much ANYTHING ELSE mechanical. Plus, Joanne sent me something by email that is very interesting… it seems that someone she knows of is using an electro device to REVERSE CALCIFICATION. See? There could be a lot of potential here that we don’t know about! Anyway, all of that is getting a little of point -sorry!- but the fact is that this would be an example of a treatment that wouldn’t compete with anything else, could have merit, and could work nicely into a protocol. Oh, there would be a “shampoo” aspect, too… just thought of that. Chore Boy is actually working on one that I’ve been testing for about a month, and I know Rye has that one he was working on. A good shampoo that at least doesn’t HURT and that is geared towards MPB should be on the protocol. As with internals, I admit I know nothing about shampoos other than how they make my hair look -so this is not my forte! Hopefully very soon we are going to make it extremely easy for a lot of people to do all of this -and have a way to really keep track of everything. This includes the previously price prohibitive and hard to stick with Top Six (it needs to all come from ONE SPOT with the correct portions for most people like me to have any sort of compliance). The bayberry hairmuck is on it’s way, and the laser helmets are already here. I think it’s going to be GREAT that we will all be able to see for sure whether this synergy between these non-competing treatments will be as good as Immortal, JDP, Joe, Nid, etc. have predicted. This reminds me… we need to come up with a big “hair loss matrix”, and identify what all of the known causes are, and then make sure we are targeting every single one of them with a way that doesn’t interfere with another one. [I suppose “non-interfering treatments” would be better than “non-competing”, but oh well… too late.] -O.M.G.
|
|
Build your own Laser Helmet | Laser Brush | Laser Device at OverMachoGrande.com! The internet’s first, best, and biggest consumer advocate site on laser therapy for hair loss! It’s time to educate yourself about one of the greatest treatments in FORUM HISTORY… |
 Member Total Posts: 57 Member Since: |
[ # 3 ] March 04, 2010, 07:56 AM Wow!...Hair loss doesn’t stand a chance. |
|
Sure, shit happens...but so does good shit! |
|
New Member Total Posts: 8 Member Since: |
[ # 4 ] March 04, 2010, 11:30 AM OMG- Thanks for the response it definitely sounds like a promising year for everyone thats following this website. I know ill stay tune! |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 6 ] March 11, 2010, 09:27 PM Hi Hopeful. In my humble opinion Bayberry extract represents the unsung, unused and potentially the best topical one could ever come up with. That said I have not been able to “get off my ass” and really start experimenting with it. There are a couple of problems I can see with it right off the bat. First it is extracted by steeping it in alcohol therefore any effective bayberry topical would have high percentage of alcohol. This presents a number of problems. It would have a drying effect on the scalp and hair and it couldn’t be shipped by air because it would be flammable. I’m not sure at this point how to overcome these hurdles. |
|
Member Total Posts: 83 Member Since: |
[ # 7 ] March 12, 2010, 01:42 PM
Hi, I am glad you talked about alcohol content. Do you know how much alcohol does a typical 5% rogaine 1ml application has? On the other hand, what is the typical alcohol dosage the super zix topical contains on each recommended dose? I ask you this becasue I developed eczema because of rogaine’s alcohol…
|
|
Editor Total Posts: 391 Member Since: |
[ # 8 ] March 12, 2010, 02:13 PM FYI… for what it’s worth, sources close to Elsom have informed me that they DO NOT use alcohol to extract the bayberry. So, maybe there is an alternative here that we are overlooking. -O.M.G. |
|
Build your own Laser Helmet | Laser Brush | Laser Device at OverMachoGrande.com! The internet’s first, best, and biggest consumer advocate site on laser therapy for hair loss! It’s time to educate yourself about one of the greatest treatments in FORUM HISTORY… |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 9 ] March 12, 2010, 03:20 PM Hi marcelo. Super Zix II contains 10% ethyl alcohol however this can be reduced to 5%. The Equate brand of 5% minox that I am holding in my hand right now has 30% alcohol but it also contains 50% propylene glycol. Propylene glycol is probably much harder on the scalp than the alcohol and could be the source of your problems….not the alcohol. |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 10 ] March 12, 2010, 03:29 PM OMG if you could get your hands on a bottle of the elsom stuff it might help us to come up with a formula. That said I have a distrust for every hair loss treatment manufacturer out there. Just because they are using something else does not necessarily mean it would actually work. The study on bayberry was done by extracting it with alcohol. However since we are already using 1/2 ounce of ethyl alcohol in super zix II perhaps we can substitute the alcohol with an alcohol containing the bayberry and kill two birds with one stone. Personally i don’t think there is a better preservative, penetrant and follicle friendly substance better than ethyl alcohol. In and of itself ethyl alcohol has shown to actually grow some hair. It also get’s blamed for a lot of scalp problems because it is often found with propylene glycol. It can’t be overused however and should be in a solution with some form of oil to counter the drying effect. |
 Member Total Posts: 32 Member Since: |
[ # 11 ] March 12, 2010, 08:00 PM Bayberry has traditionally been used as a decoction having been boiled in water. Decoctions usually break free alot of the inner polyphenols that are locked deep in the connective fibers of the root. Perhaps this is what they are using? |
|
Member Total Posts: 83 Member Since: |
[ # 12 ] March 13, 2010, 02:02 AM
Hi Zix, thans for clarifying for me. I developed a really bad eczema from the alcohol in Rogaine, thats why I stopped using any kind of alcohol on my scalp. Maybe 5% its mild enough? I would have to try it out. Is there any way to manufacture a alcohol-less formula? is the alcohol really indispensable? |
 Member Total Posts: 58 Member Since: |
[ # 13 ] March 13, 2010, 10:01 AM Can’t see a reason to distrust what elsom are doing. Send Dr Yechiel an email if you’re curious, he’s usually very forthcoming about his products. Have had very good experiences with them myself. |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 14 ] March 13, 2010, 11:07 AM Sorry Joey. Personally I am not interested in emailing Dr Y. In my opinion there is no topical hair loss product that will be worth the price he is asking. |
|
Member Total Posts: 58 Member Since: |
[ # 15 ] March 13, 2010, 11:23 AM What are you talking about? They’re not that expensive. Having your own product doesn’t mean everyone else out there is trying to cheat us. If anything, trashing everyone else just sheds a bad light on your own character. I’d suggest you retain some humility here if you’d like to garner trust in the common forum goer. |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 16 ] March 13, 2010, 01:45 PM Nah Joey that’s not what it is. I’m big on compliance. Unless something is cheap, people probably won’t stick with it. Now if there was a topical out there that really worked great….that would be a different story. That would be worth the money. Unfortunately I’m not aware of any and I don’t personally think that such a thing exists. Also I don’t see anything I posted on this thread where I trashed Dr Y. One more thing. I’m not sure elsom wouldn’t ruin the molecule we are looking to apply from bayberry perhaps through dehydration. This would be something you should clear up with Dr Y before ordering. By the way do you go under the indentity of jacob on another forum? |
|
Member Total Posts: 83 Member Since: |
[ # 17 ] March 13, 2010, 03:25 PM
Hi Zix, thank you. |
|
New Member Total Posts: 12 Member Since: |
[ # 18 ] March 13, 2010, 03:28 PM Zix— Could I add a liquid bayberry extract to super zix 2 and just leave out the ethyl alcohol. Could you please tell me which of these would be better and how much to add. http://www.iherb.com/Nature-s-Answer-Bayberry-Bark-Organic-Alcohol-Extract-2-fl-oz-60-ml/7956?at=0 Thank You |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 19 ] March 13, 2010, 03:35 PM Hi Marcello. No the only data we have on bayberry uses alcohol to extract the molecule needed. I already know it is not soluble in water or glycerin. That said I’m not convinced you couldn’t tolerate a 10% alcohol solution especially when there would be some oil in the product to compensate for drying effect. Remember alcohol is one of the few natural preservatives and penetrants anyway. It is probably more follicle friendly than anything else out there. We even have some data to suggest that in and of itself it can grow some hair back. How do you know it was the alcohol that caused the eczema? What minox brand were you using? Minox is usually loaded with PPG and in my opinion this is the more likely cause scalp problems. |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 20 ] March 13, 2010, 03:42 PM “Could I add a liquid bayberry extract to super zix 2 and just leave out the ethyl alcohol.” I would guess you could. The link shows a 2 ounce bottle but it is in alcohol. I would suggest you add the entire bottle as a substitute. I would try adding 1/2 ounce to the brew as a substitute for the alcohol that is suppose to go in the formula. |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 21 ] March 13, 2010, 03:46 PM “Could I add a liquid bayberry extract to super zix 2 and just leave out the ethyl alcohol.” I would guess you could. The link shows a 2 ounce bottle but it is in alcohol. I would try adding 1/2 ounce to the brew as a substitute for the alcohol that is suppose to go in the formula. |
|
Member Total Posts: 83 Member Since: |
[ # 22 ] March 13, 2010, 04:26 PM
I don’t know 100% for sure, but 50%. It COULD have been the ethanol or the PPG (Both are alcohols). I used Rogaine, both in liquid and foam vehicles… |
|
New Member Total Posts: 12 Member Since: |
[ # 23 ] March 13, 2010, 04:38 PM
One of them has Organic grape alcohol content: 70% while the other is 12-15% certified organic alcohol. Thank You |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 24 ] March 13, 2010, 04:52 PM Hi marcello. I think you might be drawing conclusions about alcohol that may or may not be true. I’m looking at an alcohol content of the formulation to be around 10%. The minox I have is 30% alcohol and 50%PPG. That’s 8 times as much irritating stuff as I’m proposing. |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 25 ] March 13, 2010, 05:01 PM Hi Hopeful….I’m sorry I really don’t know but this is how I see it. It is my belief that it is always the dissolved stuff that works best. Therefore the higher the alcohol content the more dissolved bayberry. Either way I would adjust how much you add of either to equal around a 10% alcohol content in the final formulation. In super zix II there are roughly 105mls of water, 10 mls of Muck, 30 mls of 15mls of 70% ethyl alcohol. Therefore I would substitute 15 mls of the bayberry extract that is 70%. In the long run however it would be nice if my experiments work out that I could make an alcohol solution with more dissolved bayberry so that upon dilution in the formula we could maximize how much bayberry is in it. That’s what I was able to do with saw palmetto. By extracting it myself I was able to make a higher concentrated solution than is commercially available. |
|
Member Total Posts: 83 Member Since: |
[ # 26 ] March 13, 2010, 05:22 PM
Thanks for your reply Zix. Do you have an estimate date when you’ll have your formula with the added bayberry ready for sale? |
|
Member Total Posts: 83 Member Since: |
[ # 27 ] March 13, 2010, 05:49 PM
I’ve used Elsom/Dr. Yechiel’s products before and they didn’t do ANYTHING for me, except making my hair look clean and soft. But nothing for hair loss! IMHO there are better products out there, and cheaper too. Elsom products ARE expensive, $65+S&H for a 2oz shampoo? I used nanoscalp -men scalp care- for 6 months straight and another doctor friend of mine did the same too, and we had NO results whatsoever, except like I said, leaving hair very clean and soft, but a $3 dollar walmart bought laureth sulfate shampoo would do the same! -Why not use laureth sulfate if you use Parabens like Yechiel’s shampoos? Yes, methyl paraben and propyl paraben. Now, before someone jumps at me, I know there are studies supporting both sides of the arguments: Parabens are bad , parabens are not bad (not good either) for you. Ouf of the top of my head, there’s a toxicological study that said parabens “adversely affects the secretion of testosterone and the function of the male reproductive system.” If I can avoid that, I will! Why? because we have options, and there are MANY MANY other products that DO NOT contain probably harmful ingredients, and are less expensive! So why use prabens? because THEY ARE CHEAP!! but for $65 USD and 2oz of product, why not use a more expensive, safer option? Because they DO NOT CARE! COME ON!! It’s a no brainer! Also, they smell like bogus science, as they have most of the the flags! They carry a product for EVERY imaginable condition of the scalp and skin! Who has backed up these products? forget the meta-analyzed, peer-reviewed multicentered double-blind case-controlled clinical trials, forgte those, but WHERE’S THE EMPIRICAL-REAL WORLD EVIDENCE SHOWING THEY WORK? then why charge $65 for 2 oz when they are just glorified shampoos/cleaners? Another flag: They use “nanosome” and “nanotechnology” as buzz words A LOT in their marketing pages, and they use the term “nano-dispersosome” alot too, google that and the only result will be the Elsom cosmeceutical web pages! Nanosomes are not something cutting edge or space age, in fact they are pretty easy to produce even with minimal equipment and knowledge. We could talk about ALMOST EVERY ingredient in the formula I used, and find a way cheaper source to obtain them. Maybe $15-$20 for their products would be acceptable, unless they EFECTIVELY REALLY WORKED I wouldn’t mind paying $65- hell, even $100 a month! So my opinion? Stay away, sounds like a scam to me, glorified shampoos. There are better, cheaper, products with NO HARMFUL INGREDIENTS. I havent tried Zix’s products yet, but I sure will! and to be honest, I am so glad there are people out there like OMG and Zix and other’s who DO CARE for their peers and are working on alternatives that are fair, natural, potent and very well made! Let’s take back our health! I vouch for FAIR TRADE, ALWAYS. I didn’t get that with Elsom/Yechiel’s products. |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 28 ] March 13, 2010, 05:53 PM No but once I figure it out I can tell people how to do it themselves. It’s not very expensive. I just ordered a pound of bayberry for around $35 including shipping. Then all you’d need is some coffee filters and a mason jar. You make a tea bag by putting the bayberry in a coffee filter and then soak it in alcohol. Then you use this alcohol in place of the alcohol you would normally use in super zix II. There’s no reason you couldn’t do this right now. I just don’t know how much bayberry to soak and for how long. |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 29 ] March 13, 2010, 05:59 PM Oh wait! Don’t buy anything yet. I still don’t know if it will precipitate out when we add the water to it. Hang on a week or so. |
|
Member Total Posts: 83 Member Since: |
[ # 30 ] March 13, 2010, 06:04 PM
Hey man, on a side note, thank you for being one of the good guys like OMG, and thanks for caring and offering fair trade in your products. You guys offer hope and support and that is priceless.
|
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 31 ] March 13, 2010, 06:19 PM Thanks for the kind words marcelo. They mean more to me than you probably realize. Thanks for supporting my statement regarding elsom products. Yes I too suspect liposomal technology is just the latest buzzword to charge people ridiculous prices. I’m not saying the technology is a scam. I’m saying the technology is unnecessary. |
|
Member Total Posts: 83 Member Since: |
[ # 32 ] March 13, 2010, 06:22 PM
You are welcome, I am just sick of the big pharma, the system, and fellow M.D.‘s trying to get rich by unfair commercial practices and persuading people who are desperate and suffer from hairloss. About liposomes, the technology exists since 1961! LOL THE WORD HERE IS FAIR TRADE!!! ECOLOGICAL BUSINESS PRACTICE! and it should be humanity’s flag and mantra for this century! We Want fair trade in everything! Regards! |
|
Member Total Posts: 32 Member Since: |
[ # 33 ] March 13, 2010, 06:26 PM Marcelo, Have you ever tried the process to encapsulate something yourself? I have followed several different directions and have never gotten a satisfactory end product. I have tried several different brands of ingredients and directions and have never had anything close to a purchased liposomal product. Any tips or suggestions would be appreciated! |
|
Member Total Posts: 83 Member Since: |
[ # 34 ] March 13, 2010, 06:31 PM
What are you trying to encapsulate? it all depends if you are trying to encapsulte a hydrosoluble compound? otherwise it gets more complicated -you need to get the lipophilic compound “sandwhiched” between a lipid bilayer, on the non polar locus. but of course it’s no imposible to do, but for that you do need more expensive equipment. An easy (but costly) alternative would be to have a professional encapsulate those for you.
|
|
Member Total Posts: 60 Member Since: |
[ # 35 ] March 13, 2010, 08:06 PM [removed by OMG] Marcelo… Elsom does not have a $65 shampoo..of any size.
This is the funniest one. There are some other companies using the Nanosome etc terms..but they’re doing so “illegally”. Those terms are Elsoms- trademarks! You’d better be careful about buzzwords..we’d better not see them around here..or products that come out of this site Your last comment there is also funny..since some posts later you say: “it all depends if you are trying to encapsulte a hydrosoluble compound? otherwise it gets more complicated -you need to get the lipophilic compound “sandwhiched” between a lipid bilayer, on the non polar locus. but of course it’s no imposible to do, but for that you do need more expensive equipment. An easy (but costly) alternative would be to have a professional encapsulate those for you”
They’ve worked for me, and others. They don’t use alcohol…pg…the products last me a long time..I love rotating things, etc. I am curious to know where you posted previously about using the Elsom products. Nice site- OMG and gang.
|
|
Editor Total Posts: 391 Member Since: |
[ # 36 ] March 13, 2010, 08:20 PM Jacob… I removed the first part of your post. Man, you are welcome to post here -you know a lot, and I’ve been friends with you a long time- but that was an “F” for here because whether you realize it or not, your language is geared to cause trouble. Joe is an editor here, and you’ve got plenty of other places to start conspiracies about his thought patterns! We aren’t doing that here -especially to an editor (someone working their ass off selflessly to better this site)! Terms like “some ‘Marcelo’ says…” aren’t constructive, either. Feel free to post something that’s contrarian to what we say, but change the way you say it, and don’t try to fry people. We’ve had to deal with that on every other board, and we are going to enforce that it doesn’t happen here. -O.M.G.
|
|
Build your own Laser Helmet | Laser Brush | Laser Device at OverMachoGrande.com! The internet’s first, best, and biggest consumer advocate site on laser therapy for hair loss! It’s time to educate yourself about one of the greatest treatments in FORUM HISTORY… |
|
Member Total Posts: 60 Member Since: |
[ # 37 ] March 13, 2010, 08:30 PM
Don’t try to fry people?? LOL! You mean like Dr. Yechiel, who’s not even here to defend himself? Or I guess you could say Joey as well, although he is here What I said that you deleted was completely true, but I’ll post it elsewhere. It would have been nice to point out to Joe that Joey is not me.
|
|
Editor Total Posts: 391 Member Since: |
[ # 38 ] March 13, 2010, 08:35 PM Duly noted about Joey -I know that anyway…. and let’s not waste our time talking about it anymore. No starting trouble with site members. |
|
Build your own Laser Helmet | Laser Brush | Laser Device at OverMachoGrande.com! The internet’s first, best, and biggest consumer advocate site on laser therapy for hair loss! It’s time to educate yourself about one of the greatest treatments in FORUM HISTORY… |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 39 ] March 13, 2010, 10:07 PM “About liposomes, the technology exists since 1961! LOL Marcello….you are the guy I’ve been looking for! Yes please describe the instructions for making liposomes! Post them on this site please. If you’re not comfortable doing that send them via email to me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). I don’t think we necessarily need to use the technology. I just want people to understand how companies are taking advantage of them.
|
|
Member Total Posts: 60 Member Since: |
[ # 40 ] March 13, 2010, 10:47 PM So every company that is using liposomes(Elsom does not use liposomes, btw) is ripping people off. Just using them and the term(s) for the sole purpose of making a few extra bucks. Making your own liposomes is an old topic btw..it’s been discussed before. There are many reasons why no one is bothering with it.
|
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 41 ] March 13, 2010, 11:15 PM Welcome to the board jacob. First I don’t believe the technology is even necessary. Second I think it’s overpriced. Lastly, it seems to me we would have heard a lot more positive testimonials from users of those type products by now if the technology was truly worth the price. “Making your own liposomes is an old topic btw..it’s been discussed before. There are many reasons why no one is bothering with it.” I think that’s for us to decide. If the thread moves in that direction so be it. You might be correct though, since I don’t believe using the technology is even necessary for treating hair loss topically. But if we could learn how it’s done, we could take the mystery out of the subject and perhaps keep people from wasting their money. (In my humble opinion). |
|
Member Total Posts: 60 Member Since: |
[ # 42 ] March 13, 2010, 11:59 PM You make is sound like only lipo/nansomal products are “expensive”(what was that one that was just being “trialed”..the guy wanted what- $400??..). But in my case, and I’ve read others state this as well- Elsom’s seem to last longer than..say..a watery/alcohol type topical. A little goes a long ways. No one is saying they’re the solution to everything. But the tech does make sense, especially if you do not care to use alcohol and/or pg. That and there are examples of less of an ingred needed in a liposomal type carrier compared to a regular carrier(minoxidil was used). Here’s an example where something worked in with liposomes, but not with other:
http://www.dermotopics.de/english/issue_2_03_e/7jahrestagung_2_2003_e.htm Absorption/penetration depth along hair follicles:
Just knowing the above makes me want to use such tech whenever possible. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples out there(there are others posted at HLF..but the links are no longer loading up). If somebody here can come up with something that’ll work wonders, w/out such tech- go for it. Every little boost is going to help, though.
|
|
Editor Total Posts: 391 Member Since: |
[ # 43 ] March 14, 2010, 12:22 AM What I’d really like to know is how we can test the penetration of substances without having to chop off pig ears or anything like that. I’m really interested in getting some sort of method developed for us to do this. I wonder if it’s possible to use some sort of leather/fabric/something so we can actually SEE. I’m actually a big believer in the potential of liposomal topicals -I know Joe and I disagree a tad on that and have debated it on the phone quite a bit- but I certainly don’t know if I’m right. I’d like to find a way to know for sure. -O.M.G. |
|
Build your own Laser Helmet | Laser Brush | Laser Device at OverMachoGrande.com! The internet’s first, best, and biggest consumer advocate site on laser therapy for hair loss! It’s time to educate yourself about one of the greatest treatments in FORUM HISTORY… |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 44 ] March 14, 2010, 12:45 AM Here’s an idea I had several years ago. It may be the dumbest f-ckin thing I’ve ever come up with but here goes. You buy a chicken leg and use the skin. You take your topical and add some sort of color to it. You warm the skin to 100 degrees. You apply your topical to it and see if it comes through to the other side. Or you slice the chicken skin cross wise and observe it under a magnifying glass or a microscope. I suppose you would really want to use some other animals skin but I don’t have the heart for that kind of thing. I know….the idea is ridiculous. But I honestly think we’ve made penetration too big of an issue. We’ve blammed penetration for the reasons why hair loss treatments are so ineffective…...but what is really happening is simply that the follicles are encapsulated with fibrosis and also miniaturized beyond the point where they can be saved. That’s the reason why nothing works that well! Don’t you see how it explains everything? I remember one of the first arguments against the original zix formula was that it contained no penetrant at all. Therefore it couldn’t possibly work. Yet it did work! How is that possible if things are really that hard to deliver into the skin? Where are all the glowing testimonials for elsom’s products? Where are all the glowing testimonials for other products that used a liposomal delivery technology? If this stuff was truly better we would have heard more from people by now. |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 45 ] March 14, 2010, 12:58 AM “Just knowing the above makes me want to use such tech whenever possible.” Hi Jacob. Well the technolgy and the products have been sold to people for a few years now and I see little evidence that it has helped people suffering from male pattern baldness? It seems to me it has been pretty much proven to be a dead end. I think they should start making liposomal diaper cream however. Surely there would be a good market for something that costs more and doesn’t really work any better. Just call it liposomal and get all the concerned mom’s out there to buy it.
|
|
Member Total Posts: 60 Member Since: |
[ # 46 ] March 14, 2010, 01:23 AM
I’ve read plenty of good reviews on Elsom’s…DermaHeal…Sinere’s…even Divine Skin’s. You’ll probably see plenty that did not. I realize you’ll choose to ignore what’s been posted, but I’ve already shown why going the liposomal/nansomal route makes sense. There are examples of it working when others don’t..less is needed than regular carriers, etc. We’re not treating diaper rash. This is one of the hardest things to treat- MPB. If we didn’t have a solution for diaper rash you’d actually have made some sense there. There’s a reason why some are asking for Bayberry in Zix(Zix has solved so many’s problems? I don’t think so). There’s a reason why many(and they should) use more than one product. It’s been said that just about anything can grow SOME hair. Every…little….boost…can help. I should also mention..again..that some don’t like to use pg or alcohol, or very little. I HAVE seen progress on those areas you claim will not regrow hair. I’ve seen others respond to you on that a well. On Fibrosis, there’s a reason why I use NanoFibrin. And at least you’re not talking about the cost anymore
|
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 47 ] March 14, 2010, 01:40 AM Not buyin it jacob. I think my explanation for inadequate results is far more likely.
|
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 49 ] March 14, 2010, 01:51 AM I still think they should come up with liposomal diaper cream. Think of the market out there! You just use a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo telling concerned mothers how much better this new cream is. Also it would be better if you get an MD to endorse the thing or say he invented it. (People just go ape shit when a doctor comes up with something). You make them realize just how inadequate the old diaper cream is. Even if the old diaper cream is adequate you CREATE a need for it in the minds of all the little concerned mothers. People always want to buy the next new thing even when it’s no better than the old thing. Good talking with you jacob. Maybe we can pick it up again tomorrow. |
|
Member Total Posts: 58 Member Since: |
[ # 50 ] March 14, 2010, 05:51 AM Don’t really get what you’re trying to prove Joe. Is nothing any good unless it comes out of your own head? It’s not the liposomes themselves that are supposed to grow hair, any more than eating ‘boiled’ as opposed to ‘steamed’ is more effective if all you’re eating is shoe. It’s a potential technology that COULD be of benefit if you’d stop being so blinded by your own ego. |
 Member Total Posts: 23 Member Since: |
[ # 51 ] March 14, 2010, 12:36 PM Ugh, just when you think youve found a reprieve from jacob….... I dont think ego even comes into play here at all considering Zix is hardly marketed as the end all topical (or marketed at all for that matter). I think, despite the miles of conjecture that could be spouted off here, the argument is that Elsom’s topicals are no more proven than something like Zix ; not that one is effective and one isnt, but that theres no evidence that Elsom’s topicals are any more effective due to their encapsulation, and this is a valid argument no matter the subjects involves. Ive never used Zix, granted, but I do have a jar of Juveline, so ultimately I can let the product speak for itself and forgo all this retarded forum nonsense. An drop of physical trial is worth an pool of opinion, and an ocean of conjecture. Innnnnn any case, I do have some DMI in the house, and some skin on chicken leg quarters, so I suppose I could grab some food coloring this week and try out a little penetration experiment. DMI is likely a bit less complicated than liposomes, but it should probably be able to shed at least some light on how effective penetration enhancers can actually be, not that I think chicken skin is a decent analogue for human skin. I dont have a camera good enough to show results on something this small, so youll probably just have to take any results I come across with a grain of salt until someone who does have one tries it out. Im much more interested in seeing the effects of DMI enhanced bromelain and allantoin on my mellon, but itd be nice to have solid visible proof of enhancement. Thankfully, Lotion Crafter stocks DMI now, so getting my hands on more wont have to take 3 weeks like it does through Bulk Actives. |
|
Member Total Posts: 60 Member Since: |
[ # 52 ] March 14, 2010, 01:48 PM The point isn’t that Zix/Joe claims to be/have the end all topical…neither does Elsom. But there’s no point in even addressing Joe anymore since he’s not talking about the cost anymore..isn’t addressing the examples I’ve given..and the fact that, like I keep saying..every little boost is going to help. This is MPB we’re dealing with. Then there’s the getting away from alcohol..pg…time releases…the phosphatidylcholine in the nanosomes is great for the skin..etc etc. Nor is Marcelo just saying there’s no proof for one over the other when he uses terms such as “bogus science”- disproven by just the examples I’ve given…“scam”...etc. Obviously products can and do work w/out lipo/nano tech. I’m using some of them. But when someone starts spitting out nonsense like that…. BTW..does Dr. Marcelo have a website? I forgot to add…fewer/no side-effects with certain ingreds. This isn’t the one I’m thinking of..but I’ve posted one before on Retin-A: http://www.aapspharmscitech.org/view.asp?art=pt0203_tn4 |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 53 ] March 14, 2010, 02:30 PM “Ugh, just when you think youve found a reprieve from jacob…....”
Great post stump. Bravo! |
|
Member Total Posts: 83 Member Since: |
[ # 54 ] March 14, 2010, 02:49 PM
-Hey man, first off, you are falling into the one very common error in argumentation, I don’t have to be a world authority in trichology to tell everyone my experience with A or B product, be it good or bad. It’s called empirical experience/data. -And no, I don’t have a web site (Does it matter? and how?) and I was working my ass off, all night ward thats why I hadn’ replied. I am a 33 yo plastic surgeon (graduated from plastic surgery residency and took/passed national boards 2 years ago) and work at a level I trauma hospital at E.R. reparing mangled hands, faces, burnt patients, doing skin grafts, allografts, cultivated skin, etc. I do have some experience with laser and biophotonics, not trichology specifically, but then again, I wouildnt have to be even a doctor to say a product didnt work for me and my friend. -Also There IS a $65 US 2 oz scalp serum (I wrote the name some posts above) and I did use it for 6 months and my room mate doctor (when I was a resident 2 years ago) used his own too and we hadn’t any result, why is that SO HARD TO BELIEVE or so DAMAGING TO THE AUTHOR? I even told you the name of the product, look it up in google and Elsom webpage. -Also I didn’t say nanosemes were bogus, you are projecting your own thinking onto mine, another very common error. Just to be clear, Google the term “dispersosome” and tell me what links do you get. -Red flags? first off , google “dispersosome”. -To end my participation in this particular topic and thread, I must say I am entitled to my own opinions as sure as you are, and I said why I thought $65 USD for 2 oz of product was expensive, because it DOESN’T WORK AS WELL AS IT SHOULD! If it did, people all over would be using them and posting reviews. And I think Zix and OMG are good guys because they play fair! what is fair trade? a just, fair business, and not trying to charge alot more than a product is worth, like Dr. Heller trying to charge $1000 USD for injecting your own PRP iotro your scalp in 10 minutes and $65 USD 2 oz scalp products that haven’t earn their place in real world positive results yet. Thank you, Best regards, |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 55 ] March 14, 2010, 03:53 PM Great post Marcello. Well said! Drop me an email sometime and tell me what you know about making liposomes. I have an idea how to make them however it might really help if you share your insights into the technology. |
|
Member Total Posts: 60 Member Since: |
[ # 56 ] March 14, 2010, 06:37 PM Dr. Marcelo, The reason for asking if you had a website- can’t a person ask w/out you getting so defensive? It’d be nice if there was some information out there on you.
As I said previously..Nanosomes etc are their trademarks. That is why when doing a Google search you’ll turn up Elsom Research..Dr. Yechiel, etc. Every company has names for their various products, ingredients, tech..and use words to describe their products. I’m telling you right now…If I see any “buzz words” on any products coming out of this site..and/or “Dr. approval” or even Dr. related products…I’ll be looking for you and Joe to be putting down such products and individuals. Although Joe hasn’t been consistent with that already. Did I mention a product doesn’t have to use such tech to be expensive?
|
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 57 ] March 14, 2010, 07:09 PM Jacob….this is the very kind of thing you do that runs people off of forums. You made your points and we’ve made ours. Why don’t you give it a rest. |
|
Editor Total Posts: 192 Member Since: |
[ # 59 ] March 14, 2010, 07:33 PM That’s enough of that Jacob. Give it a rest. |
|
Member Total Posts: 83 Member Since: |
[ # 60 ] March 14, 2010, 08:15 PM
I am sorry mate, I don’t have any interest in providing any more “ethos” for my credibility, or having you write Dr. Whoever and ask him if I did/didn’t buy any of his products, nor will I deploy a visual proof of sales, this is getting too convoluted. And we didn’t “happen” to synchronically order the product out of the blue randonmly, we planned on buying it together, as we had tried ALOT of other things together also, that didn’t work either. And the bogus science claim is based on “no great results aroudn the world” and on the nanosomes claim, and on the fancy names like “boosting”, “clarifying”, “elasticizer” etc. hey, I am not even argumentating about anything now, everything has a time and a place and what I had to say, I did already. Just for everyone here to know: Liposomes are not the trademark of anyone, evey trillion of the cells that make up your biological substrate and milieu contains liposomatic technology in their cell walls, as there are only three kind of molecules in life: Polar, non-polar and amphipathic-amphiphilic. A liposome is just an amphipathic polymer, on the other hand, a “dispersosome” is just a made-up term. “Liposome” then, is not their trademark, on the other hand “dispersosome” may very well be. Rebrainding… Like you can’t patent water and then dress it up with a fancy name like “super fluid water” and go hyping it around to over inflate prices… well in fact you can! look up “desani water” it’s just rebranded lake water sold out 4 thousands times as expensive! *LOL* So I am out, |
|
Member Total Posts: 83 Member Since: |
[ # 62 ] March 14, 2010, 08:55 PM Ok, I am glad. So to be fair, ethical, poliitcally correct and even kind I will elaborate just a bit: I bought this product: It’s $65 USD , 55 grams (do the conversion to Oz = 2) Ingredients: Boiled down review, IMO: Expensive product for me, didn´t work for me after indicated consistent use for 6 months, in my opinion the company uses a lot of curious names like “scalp bodybuilding formula” etc., and in my opinion their marketing over emphasizes a technology that hasn’t proved to be better in real world everyday results Any one cares to comment on these particular ingredients effectivenes? maybe Zix, or Nidhogge or OMG? as there may be some real world results using these and we don’t know about those yet or I may not know there’s a lot of evidence out there and this product works good. Best regards. EDIT: I forgot to add, I still think this is NOT FAIR TRADE. An idiotic definition example : unfair trade would be selling you a single apple for $5 bucks, for example. The apple will do you good, the apple is natural, but you had to work hard to obtain the $5 bucks and it just doesn’t add up, when you can get other substantially, fundamentally similar apples at much much cheaper prices, say $1 USD. This is my OWN opinion. Thanks |
|
Dr. John Crisler: "I've had so many patients come to… by jads on 07/27/10, 8:00am
|
|
|
|
|
Make your own Herbal Hair Loss Shampoo by socratees on 07/24/10, 9:13pm
|
|
|
|
|
SuperZix II - A Homemade Topical That Can Compete with… by The Zix Creator on 07/14/10, 9:35pm
|
|
|
|
|
Mask your Hair Loss in 1 Hour or Less! by BaldbeGone on 07/12/10, 11:19pm
|
|
|
|
|
Magnesium Oil for Hair Loss by Mastery on 06/29/10, 11:55pm
|
|
|
|
|
Mask your Hair Loss in 1 Hour or Less! by Bocaj on 06/28/10, 5:30pm
|
|
|
SuperZix II - A Homemade Topical That Can Compete with… by Balderdash on 06/23/10, 3:55pm
|
|
|
|
|
Mask your Hair Loss in 1 Hour or Less! by Nidhogge on 06/13/10, 3:11pm
|
|
|
|
|
Mask your Hair Loss in 1 Hour or Less! by Anxious1 on 06/12/10, 6:45pm
|
|
|
|
|
Mask your Hair Loss in 1 Hour or Less! by Anxious1 on 06/12/10, 12:28am
|
|
|
