Re: post #8
At least one article suggests that topical wheat germ oil is a bogus treatment for hair regrowth.
Quote from above link:
"In 1980 an advisory panel to the US Food and Drug Administration evaluated a number of substances used in hair lotions and creams—including amino acids, aminobenzoic acid, ascorbic acid, benzoic acid, B vitamins, hormones, jojoba oil, lanolin, polysorbates 20 and 660, sulphanilamide, tetracaine hydrochloride, urea, and wheat germ oil—and subsequently proposed that these products be removed from the market.28Other ineffective remedies include scalp massage, dietary modification, frequent shampooing, electrical stimulation, and Chinese herbal extracts.27"
So I read the (37 year old) ruling concerning this, and had these thoughts.... First, wow, that's a long time ago, and since...
1) FDA approved Minoxidil (as Rogaine) in the '80s and Finastiride in the '90s for hair loss treatment
2) An FDA approved Red Light Therapy device was introduced in 2007 for hair loss (LLLT - Low Level Light Therapy)
In the original determination, much was made by the FDA panel of the lack of clinical results for otherwise widely touted therapies, and anecdotal reports of successful treatments. Without these clinical studies, the FDA simply denied anything proposed, and also didn't like many submitted studies, and so denied their claims as well.
This made me wonder what would deter someone from conducting more studies on these substances, done correctly, to get approval for a therapy that could be worth a lot of money if successful. A little research brought up some staggering cost estimates, and they give credence to the thought that the FDA process is keeping otherwise potentially positive treatments buried and off the market, for lack of ...well .. money. And certainly no generic, unpatentable substance will ever get financed, because there is no pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow for these. I'm thinking of those everyday substances mentioned in the original ruling for example.
Back to money, I'm assuming "dermatology" is the category of interest here, and even though relative costs are low compared to other areas, $50,000,000 is no small amount to wager on the hopes of getting successful results. No wonder so few products are ever sent through this process.
Considering the three 'proven treatments', the only one with no side effects is the LLLT, and is something that can be done at home with relatively inexpensive equipment over a long period of treatment. Perhaps also in conjunction with some other 'unproven' substances (Niagen, wheat germ, etc) to support cellular follicle biogenesis. I have plans to test this out with my own N=1 study, so hair's hoping!
Edited by Oakman, 10 September 2017 - 03:06 PM.