It seems to me that all the recent research, whether it’s clinical trials from Aderans, or trials of a new drug treatment from Cosmo in Italy, always present before and after hair count comparisons and “increased hair counts”. They always conduct the tests on scalps which already have some hair, often lots of hair.
Now, actually this situation approximates me and probably most people here. Although I have substantial thinning and much less than 50% original density in my balding areas (crown and frontal hairline), I don’t have any areas that are completely bald. There is still some terminal hair growing in all the places where my hair was originally thick.
However, it occurs to me that testing on people like me, i.e. on scalp surfaces that still have fairly substantial hair counts and even distribution, is not the ideal showcase for clearly demonstrating new hair growth. If these researchers want to show that their techniques are CLEARLY GENERATING NEW HAIR (whether it’s brand new “de novo” follicle neogenesis, or stimulation of invisible/dormant vellus or miniaturized follicles), then they ought to use at least some SLICK BALD PATIENTS, in fact, they ought to focus on those patients, and test on a lot of them.
Only in this way will they be able to clearly demonstrate whether their procedures are really generating “new” hair, and not show confusing results with slight increases of hair counts, which are very hard to discern in photos, and can be easily fudged and manipulated by these researchers.