Wow, those "old" seem as if they were taken 10-15 years in the future.

I wonder if in fact, as you're suggesting, his changes in appearance were intended as a means of improving his public figure, rather than his health and subjective appearance.

wow, how did he change his appearance so much?

More hair, more tan, more money, more sex, more training. That's the formula I guess.

>Pick one.

I think a pretty big one is he appears to be working out regularly, now. Probably a better diet, get some sun, etc.

He lives in LA instead of Silicon Valley.

I had no idea he had a hair transplant. It looks very nice.

Rogain

Slightly O/T. A buddy of mine was saying last night that his lady suggested looking at a hair regrowth product, on inspecting the packaging and marketing material he found the wonderful claim:

"Up-to 4 times more effective than a placebo in clinical testing"

You would be surprised at how many medicines on the market compare effectivity to placebo. It's mostly done in instances where there is a chance that the drug may not even work. By comparing it to a placebo, you're as close to as you can be to leveling the playing field to show it is more effective than doing nothing.

ofcourse this claim also included the wonderful phrase: "Up-to " implying that several trials were not so effetive

Or simply being aware of the fact that there is statistical variation.

There are hair loss products, such as Propecia, that are effective. Unfortunately the side effects can be severe: low testosterone, loss of libido, infertility, erectile dysfunction.

Anyone considering hair loss medication should do some concerted research.

Anybody considering Propecia should SERIOUSLY consider the consequences. Losing your hair, especially as a young man, might be stressful. But consider the possible alternative of never again being able to achieve an erection. Multiple case studies have indicated that Propecia can cause indefinite sexual dysfunction, even after you quit taking the drug. The anecdotal evidence online is much worse.

So tread carefully. The set of women who are sexually attracted to bald men is much, much larger than the set of women who are sexually attracted to men who are unable to have sex.

Just try out Rogaine/Regaine (whatever it's called there). The active ingredients are minoxidil and cutane.

They're off-the-counter products, but you still might want to talk to your doctor about it, not because there are any significant side effects, but because it's a good habit.

There's a drug on the market that's taken by patients who had prostate cancer. It grows back your hair and is being bought off - label for it. I forgot the name.

That is Propecia

When (real) clinical trials are constructed against placebo, the statistical testing is constructed accordingly. If you were comparing against an existing drug, for instance, you might be testing to show it's equal-to or equal-or-better-than (perhaps your new drug is cheaper, or works on a different metabolic pathway, or has fewer side effects, that make it worth adding to the formulary if it otherwise has equal effectiveness). If an existing treatment doesn't exist, you'd compare against placebo, but now the stats testing would be specifically for superiority.

You know, upon thinking about it, I'm not sure that many (or even most) clinical trials use one-sided testing. It makes sense to do so, and would increase power for the particular side chosen, but I can't recall ever seeing it in a paper.

I've seen it in a couple of low-key (read: Non-FDA) trials, but for anything FDA-scale I think most people are wary about submitting studies that presume their subject can't possibly have -worse- results. If it's one of the early Phase 3's, it's just an unwarranted assumption, and people will be all over you for picking a more lenient study design without damn good reason to.

"Up to" being the legal loophole. It means it can actually be less effective than a placebo.

Also, what's 4 x zero

Placebo is not Zero.

"Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect."

A double blind study observing the placebo effect showed no statistical difference between those receiving the placebo and the control group receiving a sugar pill.

In many cases that might be true. But in the case of hair growth? Do you think a Placebo really has an effect on the growth of hair?

If you set up your experiment the 'right' way, there is a good chance it has.

Here is one way that I think has a good chance of working: have your subjects pay a fairly steep amount for the trial, the evaluate it by having them fill in a questionnaire.

The "pay to take part" selects for gullibility, and also makes the subjects feel stupid if they don't report improvement. The "self-reporting", of course, helps get rid of such things as objective measurements that would spoil the party.

Finally, pick a small test group. That's cheaper, and will give positive results if only a few subjects report actual improvement. And if your first test fails, run a second, this, etc. identical test.

You'd be surprised. [1]

https://www.ptsdforum.org/c/gallery/-pdf/1-43.pdf

and this is a more recent one http://instagram.com/p/bwS-1Iwr2e/#

This is another example of what pg meant with his last essay.

Wow, did he get hair plugs?