Proctor's Nano Shampoo

[perga]

Has anybody used this and gotten results? I'm thinking of changing up shampoos.

Thanks

[israelite]

Yes I tried it! My mother loved it but it contained Sls which is no good for me. I tried pres proxiphenand it a good treatment for the hairline

[Jacob]

Oh gawd..not Proctor

[israelite]

Oh gawd..not Proctor

jazz in the private also likes proxiphen! in fact he liked it so much he ordered 5 bottles. i recommend proxiphen for hairlines!

[Jacob]

And I'm sure he uses nothing else..either And in case ppl don't know why he ordered so many at one time..have you seen the size of the containers? I think I still have a picture somewhere....

Whenever this topic comes up I feel the need to link to this thread: http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/sh ... st%29-1987

There are some other things I wish I could add to the thread..maybe will do it here sometime.

[israelite]

LOL yes the vial .5oz it very small. Jazz is on the kitchen sink regimen nonetheless the pictures are amazing

[Jacob]

I noticed a new very long thread on just this topic..over at HLH. Besides noticing the thread I provided above being posted in it and certain ppl(including you) dismissing "This thread gives alot of information from Bryan and Jacob on the product.." with "no it doesn't" etc(I guess I could start with the original post in that thread- Proctors first(?) ad back in the 1980's LYING about there being a comprehensive study on the product...and go from there. If anyone would care to explain why 1)that isn't information(that was unknown before) ppl should know about and 2)how the heck you'd give Proctor a pass on it..I'm all ears. Or eyes.) ..some other things came to mind and/or were posted over there that could be added to the list. One for now- This FDA visiting Proctor and saying everything was a-ok nonsense that ppl regurgitated in that HLH thread. And where did you guys get that information from? Bryan There has never been any evidence that shows Proctor was cleared by the FDA, including on not listing all the ingredients(or should I say active ingredients). That has been the spin/hail mary thrown out there every time someone brings up this "mysterious ingredients" issue.

Then you have a certain poster over there- Hungrylikethewolf..DoctorHouse at HLT, talking about a "Jacob conspiracy"(which is?), telling ppl to ask Proctor- like he's going to tell the truth.....who is doing so great with Prox all this time that he's now using Capillogain Tonic as well as Neogenic and talking about results with THOSE products. And yes, DH..Proctor himself has talked about those "mysterious ingredients"...

But back to this FDA issue. I found this page interesting: http://regulatory.usc.edu/Articles/Phar ... unding.pdf Does anyone know if Proctor actually makes the product himself? It seems that way..given the containers and product inconsistencies etc..but the page obviously is referring to compounding/a compounding pharmacy-type situation. Does it apply to Proctor? The whole thing is an interesting read..but a few tidbits:

Compounding can involve altering the formulation of a commercially available product as well as
combining or mixing active ingredients, also known as active pharmaceutical ingredient (API). Under the FD&C
Act, an API is essentially viewed as a finished pharmaceutical. In other words, all new APIs must apply for
NDAs or ANDAs, and the manufacturing of APIs must be compliant with all cGMP regulations. The
manufacturers must be registered with the agency and be able to supply certificates of analysis for their
products to ensure quality, purity and potency. This explains why the federal law on compounding prohibits
the use of ingredients from non-FDA registered facilities. Besides FDA-approved APIs, compounders may also
use active ingredients that are covered by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) or NF monograph, and FDA’s
list of bulk drug for pharmacy compounding. Active ingredients that have received marketing approvals but are currently regarded as unsafe or ineffective may not be used for compounding. The FDA mandates the use of certified API to prevent compounders from utilizing ingredients that may potentially be impure, sub-potent or illegally imported

On the last underlined...we don't even know all the ingredients, but look how many listed can be shown to be "ineffective", since there's no evidence being provided to show they work as claimed. Unsafe? How would anyone know? They're not even all listed.

As mentioned above, the FDA oversees the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, whereas the oversight of compounding pharmacies is a state function. On the state level, the responsibilities are generally delegated to the State Boards of Pharmacy. The state boards typically consist of pharmacists and/or health care professionals appointed by the Governor. USP, the official public standard-setting authority for prescription and over-the-counter products, often serves as a reference for the state boards. In addition, the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB), established in January 2006 in response to the criticisms on the absence of regulations, also aims at standardizing practices of compounding. State regulations may vary from state to state, but nationwide professional organizations including the Academy of Compounding Pharmacists (IACP), the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) and USP work in concert with the state authorities to ensure safe and legal practices of pharmacy compounding.

Although the FDA has deferred enforcement discretion to the states, large-scale compounding and unregulated promotion and advertising of compounded products on the Internet have prompted in-depth investigations by the agency. As a gatekeeper, the FDA is particularly concerned about pharmacies that might be manufacturing under the guise of compounding, and pharmacies that make untruthful, misleading claims on compounded products. The agency stepped forward and inspected several compounding pharmacies that were registered with the states. In response to the inspections, 10 pharmacies filed a case against the FDA, questioning its jurisdiction to regulate compounding pharmacies and inspect pharmacy records. On August 30, 2006, The U.S. District Court for the Western District Court of Texas, the Midland-Odessa Division ruled in favor of the 10 pharmacies. The key rulings stated that: compounded drugs do not fall under the new drug definitions; retail pharmacies that are compliant with applicable state laws are exempt from the requirement to submit to an FDA inspection of their records, and that veterinary products can be legally compounded from bulk pharmaceutical ingredients. The judge concluded that the FDA can only conduct limited inspections of items such as equipment, materials and labels unless the pharmacies violate state laws and dispense compounded products without valid prescriptions. Note that compounded veterinarian products had been deemed illegal by the FDA for many years; this was the first court decision to allow compounding for animal use. Although the rulings apply to pharmacies in the state of Texas only, the court’s decision has been speculated to have impact across state borders.

However, the U.S. District Court’s ruling did not discourage the agency from passing on its jurisdiction to regulate compounding. The FDA continues to exercise its enforcement options against major violations of the Act. Shortly after the ruling, the agency issued warning letters to five different pharmacies that compound topical anesthetic creams that were marketed for general distribution rather than for customized patient needs.

So in other words..if any of this applies to Prox etc...it'd be the state of Texas ppl should be contacting(hey..they mentioned it at HLH- go after them)..although some of the above seems to imply the FDA still could look into certain things.

[Jacob]

BTW..notice he says on his website "Over a dozen active ingredients in all."

I don't even recall a dozen ever being listed. Someone show me any other product/company that talks about so many active ingredients, talks about "mysterious ingredients", but doesn't disclose them all.

[israelite]

BTW..notice he says on his website "Over a dozen active ingredients in all."

I don't even recall a dozen ever being listed. Someone show me any other product/company that talks about so many active ingredients, talks about "mysterious ingredients", but doesn't disclose them all.

jacob stop it ! hlf endorses dr proctors products! i think bryan said there was mysterious ingredients . anyways i'm glad i use proxiphen because it restores hairlines

[Jacob]

I guess there are no other products/companies/ppl doing that, right? Can you list even 10 active ingredients? And of course you ignore an entire big post of mine

Bryan has said it..Proctor has said it..others have repeated it.

There is no evidence it restores hairlines. Only those using tons of products have made that claim, and as others have said- it contains minoxidil. None of the other ingreds have been proven to do squat..and keep in mind he makes claims for the product..so if anyone is going to compare it to other products....

[israelite]

I guess there are no other products/companies/ppl doing that, right? Can you list even 10 active ingredients? And of course you ignore an entire big post of mine

Bryan has said it..Proctor has said it..others have repeated it.

There is no evidence it restores hairlines. Only those using tons of products have made that claim, and as others have said- it contains minoxidil. None of the other ingreds have been proven to do squat..and keep in mind he makes claims for the product..so if anyone is going to compare it to other products....

i read your post. i'm afraid to drop proxiphen. if i drop it my hairline will go back like last time remember when I stopped everyone in the forum said my hairline was bad

[Jacob]

But I thought you were at one point even blaming Prox. Then you went back to it's working. Then....

Over a dozen active ingredients- not even 10 known. That and everything else.

Still no other companies/products/ppl anyone can point to? Even prescription? Bueller?....Bueller??

[israelite]

But I thought you were at one point even blaming Prox. Then you went back to it's working. Then....

Over a dozen active ingredients- not even 10 known. That and everything else.

Still no other companies/products/ppl anyone can point to? Even prescription? Bueller?....Bueller??

lol jacob u are funny anways i blamed nano shampoo for my scalp. never proxiphen.

[Jacob]

Ah...I don't know about that. You weren't using NANO just at the hairline...

[israelite]

Ah...I don't know about that. You weren't using NANO just at the hairline...

It was summertime when my hairline was bad.

[Jacob]

DH:

You think in a drug study, the doctor tells the patient what he is using or consuming. It could be the placebo or the real thing. And yes I know in a drug study, its free and you get paid to take it. Well think of Proxiphen as a drug study, you are taking a mystery drug and hoping it grows hair. If it doesn't, the drug has failed. Proxiphen is still being tested in a long dragged out drug study. Bryan summed it all up in one sentence, don't buy Proxiphen if you are not sure of what you are getting. Its that simple. Ironically, people take oral spiro and advodart and don't even care about the side effects. So people like me, buy Proxiphen because I don't care what is in it, as long as it does not give me sides and helps. I have no sides and I feel it works so I still buy it. My choice.

In a drug study, they are required to disclose to the FDA what the $#@^ they're giving to ppl and studying They cannot say the study is with/on _____ and also drugs/actives that they can't disclose Good grief You asked if Proctor has actually said himself that there are mysterious ingredients/ingredients he won't disclose. When the answer is "yes"(and now even in Prox-N ) ..THAT's the response/defense????? That and now you don't care, as long as it doesn't give you sides and "helps"...??

But speaking of placebo's..they're not necessarily all placebo's anyway: http://www.naturalnews.com/030209_place ... fraud.html

" Proxiphen is still being tested in a long dragged out drug study."... I don't even need to respond to that..it's insane!

And NOBODY knows what you are getting. So that means NOBODY should buy it, since NOBODY knows what they're getting!(" don't buy Proxiphen if you are not sure of what you are getting")

I shall now be Prox-talk-free..until at least Monday

[Jacob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4zyjLyBp64

Late last week I sent out numerous emails to compounding pharmacies and others that have "prescription" products. Every single one that actually responded..so far.. has said ALL the ingredients have to be disclosed.

And it's amazing how the poster "Bryan" has all the answers. Knows everything Dr. Proctor has said to the FDA..etc. I can't tell if it's another example of him just making things up...he's worked/working for Proctor(chat transcript: Bryan2 BTW, Dr. P has been negotiating with me to help him prosecute cases of patent infringement...)...or...well those are the only two choices, it seems.

[Jacob]

Ok..I just noticed the original post in this thread was from Sept 17 2010. I know some ppl are enthusiastic about what they use etc..but between Jazz getting free product and then this.....

[israelite]

Ok..I just noticed the original post in this thread was from Sept 17 2010. I know some ppl are enthusiastic about what they use etc..but between Jazz getting free product and then this.....

I'm hoping if I buy 5 I will get a freebie. Jacob let me get this straight u think proxiphen is a good treatment but its lack of info that troubles u about Dr p products

[Jacob]

I can't even imagine spending money on just one container. If you had quite a bit of hairloss and were actually seeing real results..I guess it'd be different. Ppl are wondering about the "freebie" already when a 2 year old thread gets bumped up Or maybe you just like reading my posts on this

To answer your question- No, I do not think it's a good treatment. At least I do not think it's any better than any other regular minox product out there. There is no evidence out there that shows it is. And then we have all the false claims and other snake-oil type nonsense he and B.S. have been spitting out the past 15+ years. It's not just lack of info. It's false info. Lies. Snake-oil type sales pitch'n. Etc.

Just the latest example of that:

I think it's pretty obvious that Dr. Proctor keeps most of Proxiphen's and Prox-N's ingredients to himself because he thinks of those ingredients as his "intellectual property". You can't rip him off by making inexpensive versions of Proxiphen or Prox-N, if you don't even know what's in those products!

That would actually make some sense if he or anybody else could give another example of a company/person hiding active ingredients from consumers. Look at some of the biggest companies out there with their own patented ingredients and everything else they use. Do you really think for example- L'Oreal.. doesn't disclose ingredients, and does so so you can't rip them off? Seriously- use some common sense.

Which also relates to another recent post:

I wanted to add one thing that has not been mentioned in this thread yet. Dr. Proctor is a board-certified medical toxicologist. Consequently, I think it is reasonable to believe that Dr. Proctor would not include anything toxic or dangerous in his formulation of Proxiphen. Furthermore, he has been screening the product for years. If there were any issues with the Proxiphen they probably would have manifested themselves by now.

No, it is not reasonable to believe, given all the lies and snake-oil'n going on with him. And it's still really not the issue. The quack should be disclosing all of the ingredients, and you should want to know what they are. You have the right to know what they are. Then there's the issue some others have brought up- it's possible the product doesn't even contain much of the supposed other active ingredients, besides the minoxidil. So some would obviously see results, and there's no worrying about side-effects for those that wouldn't get them with minoxidil anyway. Remember that clever snake-oil spin- the minoxidil in the product really doesn't do much, kids. It may even be pretty much dead in the product anyway. It's the OTHER ingredients that do the work. And those "mysterious ingredients"..OMG- if only you suckers knew what they were! Are you excited yet?!?!

Look at what Dr. Lee was caught doing. I'm sure I could find plenty of other examples. "Board-certified" doesn't mean squat. Patents mean little- w/out evidence(especially when there are bold claims). When you look at everything that's been pointed out in that HLT thread and by others recently and over the years, it doesn't take much to question EVERYthing surrounding such a person and their products.

[Jacob]

Now I see, after this pharmacy issue comes up..B.S. saying that supposedly Proctor just mixes up the stuff himself. I actually believe that, given how amateurish the end product looks, and the inconsistencies in color and the lumps at times..etc. The more you hear/read...
I'm sure that's perfectly legal and all too

[israelite]

there are very few things that work on the hairline and proxpihen is one of them. based on clincial studies of ingredients in proxiphen its one of the best hairline treatments jacob u should really give it a try before jumping to conclusion lol. the vast majority of people who buy proxiphen like it.

[Jacob]

There are over 20 years worth of (non)evidence to "jump to a conclusion". That is how long..that is how much time there's been..to come up with "evidence". It's not out there. I'm..as others have said..am just not seeing it with you(even you have questioned it..gone back and forth), and you're using so many other things anyway. Even in this thread you're talking about getting such great results..you're showing a pic or pics of your hairline ..and you're not talking about Prox: http://www.hairlossfight.com/forums/vie ... 4b7490dcf1

The vast majority of ppl who buy it like it? Where's the evidence for THAT.

Does ANYone care to attempt to answer the questions above...refute anything...etc?




Wait a sec...

based on clincial studies of ingredients in proxiphen

What clinical studies..or ANY studies??

[israelite]

i dropped proxxiphen but plan to add prox n to my regimen

[tinytim]

I got procters proxiphen a few years ago and was let down by the size of the tub and it was a thick cream with bits in it that was terrible to apply so that was a waste of money better to try dr klines promox then procters.

[israelite]

I got procters proxiphen a few years ago and was let down by the size of the tub and it was a thick cream with bits in it that was terrible to apply so that was a waste of money better to try dr klines promox then procters.

i think proxiphen would olny make a good hairline treatment. jacob applird it t his hairline

[Jacob]

i dropped proxxiphen but plan to add prox n to my regimen

Instead of..say..Tricomin, which actually went through what- phase 2 of the FDA trials?

Prox-N ingreds: Allantoin, ascorbate, ascorbylpalmitate, arginine, BHT, 3 carboxypyridine-N-Oxide, CU/ZN-binding peptides (from CU/ZN sulfates), EDTA, propyleneglycol, superoxide dismutases, water.

Another 20 year old product..with nothing in it that is unique...all these years and.......

jacob applird it t his hairline

[Jacob]

Interesting....

These links were posted at HLH: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... er_Proctor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Proctor

Over the past several weeks, I have been editing Androgenic alopecia and Management of baldness and have come across several hidden ads for his website drproctor.com, which I have removed. From there, I have begun to look at his biographical article, and found unreferenced claims about being on medical faculty at Baylor and UTMB Galveston. I asked for information on the article talk page, to which a user "Nucleophilic" responded. He has had a large role in writing the Peter Proctor article, but denies being the physician. He provided references that showed papers published by Proctor that had the addresses of the institutions on them. They did not list his faculty status. I referenced the alumni directory, the largest database of Baylor faculty in existence, and his name was not listed. I am extremely careful with my edits, so I also called the chair of the Department of Ophthalmology, which was one of the departments where Nucleophilic claimed Proctor was on faculty. Dr. Jones was unavailable when I called, but his senior secretary also did not recognize the name. Nucleophilic has re-entered the faculty information multiple times on the article, despite my removing it, and despite not addressing my concerns on the talk page. I feel like this is a case of Russell's teapot. The central issue is whether Proctor's mailing address listed on his publications qualifies him to be listed as faculty at the two institutions on his Wikipedia page. Because an individual can be listed on a paper for an address during medical school, residency, or fellowship, or even if volunteering in the lab for free, they do not satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Especially for the page of a doctor selling online medications and practicing telemedicine, for which a website as large and influential as Wikipedia represents a major conflict of interest.

Promotional? - Users Ben and Smokefoot (and others) above have suggested that a couple of editors have been engaging in improper promotion of Peter Proctor, which would be a violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION policy. If the promotional efforts are disruptive, the best forum for addressing those is at WP:AN, or if a single editor is the culprit, at WP:RFCU. The DRN process focuses only on content issues (specific facts stated within articles) so this DRN case could be used to analyze individual sentences within an article. The WP:Notability guideline applies to entire articles, not specific sentences within articles; so if we assume that Peter Proctor meets WP notability guidelines, then the article can/should exist and the next step is simply to assess the accuracy of material within the article. If the article is overly detailed, then specific sentences/sections should be proposed for deletion (even if sourced) if they are non-encyclopedic. Of particular concern is the assertion by user Smokefoot: "at the same time, Proctor and Nucleophilic led a subtle effort to denigrate the achievements of people who are generally accepted as pioneers and innovators - such as the Nobel prize winners" ... adding puffery into Peter Proctor is one thing, but removing or distorting information in other articles is unacceptable. If anything like that has happened, talk page discussions, RfCs, and DRN cases can be used to remedy the situation. --Noleander (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as an editor that works in the area of chemistry, I have also come across the Peter Proctor-related edits. My perception agrees with those of Smokefoot and Benjah-bmm27: there appears to be a determined effort to promote Peter Proctor here on Wikipedia to a degree that far outweighs his actual contributions to science, presenting a misleading narrative to the reader. ChemNerd (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)