Revivogen’s Study
Dear doctor,
Please go through the clinical study URL given below. I want your comments on this:
Regards
As the article says, the study was conducted on reconstructed tissue samples. In other words, the study was done in a petri dish (not on live humans), in order to “assess the effects of the test compound on the metabolism of testosterone in reconstructed human epidermis.” Nothing about growing hair, stopping hair loss, etc.
The study doesn’t show anything about actual hair loss treatment results on living humans, so if the Revivogen makers are using it as a sales point, I hope people actually take a moment to look at the study first and judge for themselves. I’d expect most consumers would want the treatment they purchased to actually have proof that it works as advertised on living people… not just in theory based on lab results. Also, the study was not peer-reviewed, which means it wasn’t checked for errors or reliability.
I’ve already made it clear about the hair loss treatments I’ll give a thumbs up to (FDA approved finasteride and minoxidil), but if you want to try unproven treatments then please, by all means, do so. Revivogen ingredients include saw palmetto and numerous vitamins in a topical treatment and they claim no side effects. While that could be true, if this was the magic bullet to hair loss treatment it would be universally recommended. Instead, the product is just another in a long line of “all natural” treatments that I wouldn’t expect to provide much help aside from lightening your wallet and dashing your hopes.
i post on hairloss talk and the general opinion has switched from pro revivogen to anti revivogen, the forum has grown up since that study and seen it for the snake oil it really is
i’ll see if the admin still wants the article up on their website because i know they are not fans of promoting snake oils
The study report was dated 2007 and I can locate no article on this study in any peer-reviewed scientific journal (would perhaps make a decent “letter to editor” in abbreviated form).
Similar to other therapeutic approaches (especially stem cell) where readers go “ga ga’ over company reports that they are engaged in clinical trials rather than actual data that is robust and available to the public in scientific forums, one must have a cautious “wait and see” attitude.