Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

New page on Farjo website - WHAT\'S NEW IN HAIR RESEARCH in 2008?

» confusing that he would claim to be interested in “evern [sic] more recent
» work” and follow it up with “(ie., published in 1997)” (huh???). Plus, HM
» is current–you can’t get anymore “recent” than that, so this makes
» no sense. Neither does spending as much time as he did on minoxidil or
» finesteride if your article is entitled “What’s New in Hair Research in
» 2008” when you have a “word limit” and there’s a bunch of other
» much more interesting stuff out there you could be reporting on.

You are witnessing a significant disconnect between what many are expecting of this research and the reality of where it is. As is regular in academia, scholars live and die by peer-reviewed publications. It is most often the standard for judging your contributions to a field, and it is the cornerstone of prudent scholarship. The reality of the situation is that the replicable, legitimate advances in the science of hair restoration only come along so often, and in particular the fields this gentleman is describing (and the field you want him to describe) are still in their infancy. There is still very, very much in this field to be understood, and while I do not personally know this man, he addresses the topic in a very responsible manner.

» You are witnessing a significant disconnect between what many are
» expecting of this research and the reality of where it is.

I dunno, Dr. Rassman. It isn’t the current state of where the research is so much as the fact that a certain area of research was intentionally omitted for confusing and inconsistent reasons provided by the author.

As is regular
» in academia, scholars live and die by peer-reviewed publications. It is
» most often the standard for judging your contributions to a field, and it
» is the cornerstone of prudent scholarship.

I didn’t perceive the article as peer-review material or any type of contribution to the field. It was just an informative article written with a lay-person audience in mind. No disrespect to Dr. Tobin, but substantive posts by Benji or James Bond impart way more scientific knowledge and terminology than was found in this article (that’s what I tend to think of as peer review stuff). The scientific community isn’t going to heap praise on Farjo because they tell the world that Follica figured out how wounding/wnt signaling can grow new hair.

There is still very, very much in this field to be
» understood, and while I do not personally know this man, he addresses the
» topic in a very responsible manner.

I was glad to read of another source legitimizing Follica’s work, but was disappointed and confused that Intercytex’s work wasn’t even mentioned, especially considering the circumstance I mentioned earlier.

Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Terms of Use & Privacy

This is an advertising site for paid advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.