March 20 2009, 3:33 pm PT | Posted in: Drugs + Photos
This patient has been taking Propecia for 2 years and not only did the hair growth fill in the crown, but even the miniaturization study showed significant microscopic benefit. This is what I keep talking about in this blog, there is the measurements of science behind what the eye sees.
Miniaturization mapping (captured with video microscope):
Before photo on the left / After photo on the right (2 years on Propecia — no surgery). Click to enlarge:
Paid advertisements (not an endorsement):
Not sure if my last comment went through. If you consider that “Remarkable” then I think there is a problem with your eye’s. The picture on the left just looks more oily then the one on the right. I understand a couple hairs may have filled in per the microscope/camera…but visually those pictures look the same with the exception of the lighting and oily scalp.
Not impressed.
There is no problem with my eyes. The remarkable nature is in the microscopic view, which clearly shows reduced miniaturization in the After image.
One may dispute the regular before/after picture (although it does look a little better to me), but the microscopic view bodes well for the patient holding on to his existing hair for some time yet. The financial cost of Proscar (just over $US200 per year in my country) is definately worth that.
Hi,
I’m underwhelmed too. Even taking into account the “microscopic” view, I don’t see anything remarkable.
It’s not clear to me that the microscopic pictures are of the same part of the scalp. Furthermore, couldn’t differences in hair cycle stage - and even differences in focus - account for some of the apparent increased thickness in the “after” photo?
The normal (non-microscopic) pictures are critically important: they represent what most humans will see when they judge this patient’s aesthetics. Therefore, I’m surprised you dismiss them as unimportant relative to the microscopic photos. In any case, they show no visible improvement whatsoever. Additionally, the “before” photo appears to have been taken with lighting focussed on the scalp (perhaps even a flash), which increases scalp visibility and therefore increases the apparent baldness. The “after” photo has more diffuse lighting, which attenuates the appearance of baldness.
Not your best post.
also dear william i am sorry to see people that CAN NOT SEE!!!
they don’t WANT to see!
I’m with Dr. Rassman on this one. Just thought I’d add my 2 cents. I don’t think the man needs any reassurance to be honest. He has GREAT judgement. More importantly, he has enough integrity for 10 men