A recent challenge came to me from one of the posters on a leading forum on HAIR LOSS. Here is an extract of my answer;
==================
This time I do not mind answering you because you finally make an academic and scientific statement and challenge, and although you provide some credentials, people can ask questions without a degree in Biomedical science. You now state a position which requires consideration and an answer…PROGRESS at last!!! We may actually end up liking each other..it has happened many times before with other challengers.
CLOGGED FOLLICLES ?
The issue as to whether or not the follicles become clogged with very HARD debris is an issue in only some resistant cases and is a theoretical position I have taken on trying to explain those few cases which are slower to respond then most others who see results quickly and respond easily to the MALINIAK METHOD, and which is why I have used the word “MAY” be clogged.
However, I strongly disagree with you if you are trying to make a generalized statement of “fact” that the follicles do not become “clogged” with some sort of debris in any and all cases, because there are dozens of products on the market which sell follicle or pore “CLEANSERS” exactly for that reason. Also, every cosmetician performs exactly that function and “squeezes” dirt, debris or whatever, from their client’s follicles and pores. They are not all imagining this problem.
Just have someone look at your scalp and get them to “squeeze” those pores and SEE WHAT HAPPENS…it will be easy and you will see what comes out of those scalp pores ( follicles) and this is all you will have to do to prove to yourself how accurate the “theory” is on my part that these follicles do become clogged with debris….some of it very, very hard.
I do agree that if this debris is not TOO hard, the hair will grow through it under normal circumstances, even in a scalp that is compromised with HAIR LOSS and MPB, once the follicles have actually been revived, and this is why the vast majority of people on this method do NOT have to add an additional follicle cleanse. But, in some cases where the follicles have been dormant for a long time and that debris has become very, very hard and entrenched … the hair will absolutely NOT push through that blockage and an EXTRA cleansing has helped some of our members overcome slow or resistant responses. This is plain common sense and very logical and I would be equally justified to ask you for scientific evidence of the contrary.
As for the quantity and quality of the evidence and proof of the effectiveness of the MALINIAK METHOD there is no doubt that our proof is strictly ANECDOTAL and only QUASI-SCIENTIFIC but in the words of Dr. JOE SCHWARCZ, a P.H.D. in Chemistry at McGill University and an international radio and newspaper celebrity; ” all real science starts with anecdotal evidence” . This is a little “bone” he once threw me in my advocacy for the exploration of alternative sciences.
Our proof is now voluminous, REPLICATED and very compelling that this MALINIAK METHOD is really working to STOP HAIR LOSS and GROW NEW HAIR and in addition to the photos, videos and testimonials on our own website , much of it comes from confirmations from people on forums like this whom I have no control over.
DOUBLE -BLIND STUDIES ?
I suggest in my book that when you are testing a DRUG you would have to go through the standard scientific testing protocol of “double-blind studies, with control groups and PLACEBOS and “peer-review” but when you are testing a “mechanical ” procedure like this MALINIAK METHOD, all you have to do is show that it works and then that other are able to REPLICATE your results independently. In our case that is exactly what has happened many, many times now. I challenge any critic to get people to stop their hair loss and grow new hair just by “telling them” that they are on this method…the essence of the PLACEBO effect…GOOD LUCK !
As an analogy, if I want to prove that I can break a car windshield with a baseball bat, all I have to do is show that I have done it and then show that other people have REPLICATED this effect independently.
I had one other micro-biologist from Australia, MIKE, 53 years old who has a science website and a major audience and following who was ten times more hostile and skeptical then you or anyone on these forums, and in an effort to discredit me and challenge my “theory” and my “evidence”, he asked me repeatedly for “scientific” data of such, as SEINFELD would say, “excruciating minutiae” of this method that it was infuriating. Questions such as; does it work better in 30 year olds or forty year old? is it better if you do 8 minutes on the machine or 9 minutes? should you do the massage before the machine or after? etc., etc., etc.,
I knew it was all an effort to just put me down…but I also knew that if I could just get him to try it..the PROOF would be in his results.
So, I answered all of his letters for a while and tried to explain that we are just a small start up company and we did not have that kind of detailed information and we cannot test all of our members ourselves because they are all over the world and that we rely on the feedback from people all over the world. I finally told him that the ONLY way for him to evaluate this properly was to try it himself…and if it fails…then he can give me all the S…T he wants.
I did not hear from him for about four months and when I finally saw a new letter from him I was reluctant to open it but curiosity got the better of me and when I read it, his tone and his attitude towards me had completely changed because HE TRIED IT…and he told me, and showed me pictures, of how his hair almost completely grew back on his crown in only four months. If he ever allows me, I will ask for permission to post them on my website to add to the pictures we already have at http://www.bornagainhair.com. Not everyone wants to make their story public.
He was an interesting case because losing your hair on the crown at 53 years old is NOT a classical case of HAIR LOSS or MPB and I speculated that at that age, this type of late onset hair loss had to be due to some very stressful event, which can also tighten the GALEA, but not as severely as in early onset, possibly, genetically pre-disposed tightness. It was exactly what happened to him. To be completely open, he was also against buying an electrical machine of ANY kind because he had already tried a LASER without success and sent it back to the company and he wanted to try only the MASSAGE portion of the MALINIAK METHOD. He did only that and he still got these results. This is NOT typical however and in my opinion it was because at 53 years old, he did not have a severe case of typical MPB and his follicles were not yet very dormant or clogged with debris.
Most people with classical hair loss and MPB absolutely need both the MASSAGE and the MACHINE steps of the MALINIAK METHOD otherwise their dormant follicles will not respond to massage alone…or we would have solved this problem a long time ago.
People, including ME, have been massaging our bald spots for years and it helps a bit but it only stimulates blood circulation very superficially and is not significantly effective in stopping hair loss or growing new hair . The MALINIAK METHOD has revealed that this is because we were massaging in the WRONG PLACE…we were massaging the bald spots themselves instead of massaging the muscles pulling on the GALEA..which is what is choking off the blood supply to the follicles and improves the circulation not just superficially, but DEEP DOWN where it is originating from. No use just massaging the top if the blood supply is choked off underneath.
Usually all my biggest critics, including many on these forums, have later become my biggest supporters once they actually TRY the MALINIAK METHOD.
One final note about “double-blind” studies; Every time I speak at a conference or am challenged by someone in the mainstream medical community about the MALINIAK METHOD or about ALTERNATIVE SCIENCES for treating Cancer, I rely on my thirty years as a researcher and a trial lawyer and I am always prepared for the inevitable comments about “QUACKERY” and about “double-blind” sacred cow of the conventional research community and I can’t wait for that question because it as easy as shooting fish in a barrel…and they are so unprepared for the rebuttal.
What I tell them is that; I will tell you who the real “quacks” are. This “double-blind”, peer-reviewed, Placebo controlled process is so tainted that it has led to over 100 DRUGS being released on the market since 2007 which went through the phase I, Phase II and Phase III stages and passed the 7 years of studies and testing and were approved by the FDA only to be removed from the market within a matter of months after they ‘KILLED” thousands of people world wide. The most recent scandal is about JASMINE, a birth control pill which has killed many women and has been withdrawn.
Recent meta studies reviewing numerous testing procedures have shown that many of these drug trials are secretly funded by pharmaceutical companies with a conflict of interest in the results, the research is outsourced to countries without any supervision and negative results are suppressed.
The World Health Organization has released statistics which say that deaths from Cancer are going to go UP from 7.5 million to 11.5 million by the year 2030. That’s death going UP not down ! Who are the real quacks ?
I also add that, just as cancer has baffled the mainstream medical community and they have been unable to solve the HAIR LOSS and MPB problem forever, we are justified to try to come up with our own alternative theories and rely on our own ANECDOTAL evidence and we are free…no, we are compelled… to try other solutions…we cannot do any worse then they have done till now .
My MALINIAK METHOD uses NO DRUGS, NO LOTIONS and NO SURGERY…and it is so inexpensive because you do not have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars year after year forever. The makers of one well known DHT inhibitor drug now has CLASS ACTION legal proceedings against it in Canada and the USA because of the harmful side-effects of this drug-based approach.
CONCLUSION – TRY IT YOURSELF
Posts: 106
Join date: 2012-01-15
Reply