TOPICAL MINOXIDIL TAKEN ORALLY VS ORAL MINOXIDIL

[trenace450]

I never said that you'd die either

You literally did, you said it twice and liked the other dudes post, that also said you died. But yeah sure, it was hyperbole. Either way, your claim was that you would face serious health consequences immediately, as far as i understood. If you wanna change your claim to "Oh no i meant it will have a tiny effect on neutrophils" then sure go ahead.

"Trust me bro" isn't scientific evidence, case closed.

Did i say it was? I'm still waiting for scientific evidence that drinking the topical solution will have serious consequences, you haven't provided any.

they're still at the lower end of the normal range and even then

Why the fuck would they come back to normal wtf???

there's no proof of the timeline or you using minxo between them

Again, why would i lie

So you never claimed to have scientific evidence, then don't argue with me, dumbass

No one cares about your no proof *trust me bro* theories.

You literally continued to engage with me after i said "You have to take my word for it". You literally do care about my trust me bro theory, you've been engaging with it . If you wanted clearcut scientific evidence, you should have just said "Sorry, I need pubmed articles or something peer reviewed so i can be certain"

Where did you get that Or did you just pull it out of your ass?

I'm guessing based on the things you say

 

[trenace450]

You might not have an incentive to lie but that's not a scientific evidence, what you tried to assert in the beginning was as if you found some holy grail

What the fuck are you talking about
I literally said "You have to take my word for it". I asserted my own experience and that i didn't get minoxidil cancer and go to the ER. If you took minoxidil, and went to the ER for minoxidil cancer, that's fine. I would believe your anecdote because why the fuck would you lie about that

and even said *No doctors were able to find* sides as if you've been regularly taking bloodworks that didn't get altered by other factors both of which you denied.

I got regular bloodwork because i was on accutane yes, that's standard. But i thought you didn't engage with my bloodwork because it's not scientific evidence?

And asserting the involvement of a doctor simply is claiming scientific evidence but i guess you're too retarded to see that

No wtf? Scientific evidence would be a peer reviewed pubmed study. I asserted the involvement of a doctor to basically say "Well this authority on general health was monitoring me and found no serious health side effects"

 

[Ogionth]

You literally did, you said it twice and liked the other dudes post, that also said you died. But yeah sure, it was hyperbole. Either way, your claim was that you would face serious health consequences immediately, as far as i understood. If you wanna change your claim to "Oh no i meant it will have a tiny effect on neutrophils" then sure go ahead.

I never meant that it would make you face serious consequences immediately but that it would replicate the side effects of taking huge oral minoxidil doses.

Because it was obvious.

if you interpret it any other way then you're retarded, how's that my fault?

Did i say it was? I'm still waiting for scientific evidence that drinking the topical solution will have serious consequences, you haven't provided any.

The scientific evidence is simple,
1. it replicates high dosages of oral minoxidil thus risking its side effects that includes leukopenia
2. it has solvents used to make it topical which are not significantly dangerous but not entirely safe to consume for a long period

Why the fuck would they come back to normal wtf???

they're still at the lower end of normal and i didn't assert that they are due to the minoxidil but that u also claim to have sickness thus the blood work is not entirely trustable.

Again, why would i lie

Not lying is not scientific evidence, try again.

You literally continued to engage with me after i said "You have to take my word for it". You literally do care about my trust me bro

Maybe because you implied the scientific evidence?

You said *no doctor has been able to found* and so on

 

[trenace450]

I never meant that it would make you face serious consequences immediately but that it would replicate the side effects of taking huge oral minoxidil doses.

So oral minoxidil = drinking topical minoxidil? We literally agree you absolute buffoon. Are you seriously gonna act like you weren't clearly making the claim that drinking topical minoxidil is inherently dangerous in comparison to using oral pills?

do not fucking drink topical minoxidil.

bro i thought u asked about applying it topically

u are gonna die because of propylene and ethanol

Is what you said

The scientific evidence is simple,
1. it replicates high dosages of oral minoxidil thus risking its side effects that includes leukopenia
2. it has solvents used to make it topical which are not significantly dangerous but not entirely safe to consume for a long period

Alright sure, provide the actual evidence. You're doing trust me bro right now, literally the same as you were criticizing me for doing a second beforehand.

and i didn't assert that they are due to the minoxidil

Are you sure about that?
"Btw your neutrophils (type of wbc) are low and leukopenia (wbc being low) is a side effect, and since consuming topical minoxidil would have a stronger effect than oral minoxidil, you experienced the side effect." Word for word what you said

Not lying is not scientific evidence, try again.

Did i say it was?

Maybe because you implied the scientific evidence?

You said *no doctor has been able to found* and so on

I "implied it"???? So saying "You have to take my word for it", that's an implication of "Here i will provide true scientific evidence for you"? That's an odd way to interpret that.
Also yeah, my doctor was monitoring me every month. If minoxidil caused minoxidil cancer, i think she would have found me to not be in the best of health, as she is a literal authority in discovering me not being in good health

 

[Ogionth]

So oral minoxidil = drinking topical minoxidil? We literally agree you absolute buffoon. Are you seriously gonna act like you weren't clearly making the claim that drinking topical minoxidil is inherently dangerous in comparison to using oral pills?

It is inherently dangerous because 1. it still contains the solvents to make it suitable for topical usage that the oral wouldn't contain

2. it replicates a higher (which in most cases is dangerous) dosage.

*u are gonna fucking die* was a hyperbole, don't know where you learned English from but it was pretty evident

Alright sure, provide the actual evidence. You're doing trust me bro right now, literally the same as you were criticizing me for doing a second beforehand.

Lol, it's obvious that it contains propylene and industrial ethanol neither of which are safe to consume over a long period.

Something so obvious requires explanation to you, might be over for your brain boyo

Are you sure about that?
"Btw your neutrophils (type of wbc) are low and leukopenia (wbc being low) is a side effect, and since consuming topical minoxidil would have a stronger effect than oral minoxidil, you experienced the side effect." Word for word what you said

Do you know what "assert" means

You clearly included other factors like accutane and sickness after which rendered the assertion useless because those factors could alter the bloodwork

Did i say it was?

If it isn't then don't talk about it because it's irrelevant

I "implied it"???? So saying "You have to take my word for it", that's an implication of "Here i will provide true scientific evidence for you"?

Strawman

That's an odd way to interpret that.
Also yeah, my doctor was monitoring me every month. If minoxidil caused minoxidil cancer, i think she would have found me to not be in the best of health, as she is a literal authority in discovering me not being in good health

The implication was inferred from "My doctor never found anything" and it's not uncommon for your doctor to use a scientific approach so thus there existed an implication.

Thus you indeed had made a claim to be scientific to begin with

Your intelligence levels are so brutally fucked that something so simple had to be explained to you.

 

[trenace450]

It is inherently dangerous because 1. it still contains the solvents to make it suitable for topical usage that the oral wouldn't contain

2. it replicates a higher (which in most cases is dangerous) dosage.

You're repeating yourself dude, i asked for actual evidence, not repetition of the same statement, you're not that low iq come on.
Also what does it even mean to replicate a higher dosage like wtf??? Are the mg's higher in molar mass or what?

*u are gonna fucking die* was a hyperbole, don't know where you learned English from but it was pretty evident

That's funny, i literally said "But yeah sure, it was hyperbole." like 3 posts ago. You're just ignoring what i'm saying so you can strawman.

Lol, it's obvious that it contains propylene and industrial ethanol neither of which are safe to consume over a long period.

Proof? Again you're repeating yourself instead of giving actual proof.

Do you know what "assert" means

"state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully" Yes and that's precisely what you did in the quote that i provided

You clearly included other factors like accutane and sickness after which rendered the assertion useless because those factors could alter the bloodwork

Yeah you asserted that minoxidil caused neutrophenia. Then i explained "Oh it wasn't actually the minoxidil that caused that" Which i showed using bloodwork, where you could see an increase in neutrophils after the sickness. Therefore, it could indeed not have been minoxidil. There are 3 possible factors, minox, accutane and sickness. All 3 were present during the neutrophenia bloodwork, the sickness was not when neutrophils returned. This is not rocket science

If it isn't then don't talk about it because it's irrelevant

It's absolutely relevant, you asked for bloodwork and now you're accusing me of lying about it. Did you want the bloodwork or not???

Strawman

That is not a strawman no. Notice the question mark at the end. I'm asking if that's your position. Am i correct in that understanding, that you interpret implications in that manner? I didn't say it was true, i asked if it was, to confirm your position.

and it's not uncommon for your doctor to use a scientific approach so thus there existed an implication.

Great so if i continually inductively check my balls for cancer, and i conclude that i don't have it, is that scientific evidence in your mind?
What's the difference between that hypothetical and a peer reviewed pubmed study proving i don't have testicular cancer?
I take scientific evidence as peer-reviewed dude. Just because someone uses the scientific method does not mean their conclusions are scientific evidence lol

 

[Ogionth]

You're repeating yourself dude, i asked for actual evidence, not repetition of the same statement, you're not that low iq come on.

Maybe because you asked me for evidence in the 2nd paragraph and this was a reply to the first one and I hadn't gone to the next yet?

Also what does it even mean to replicate a higher dosage like wtf??? Are the mg's higher in molar mass or what?

You don’t know the dose you're absorbing (topical is usually 5% solution = 50 mg/ml).

a dropper (1 ml) = 50 mg = way higher than standard oral dose

that's what I meant by replication of higher dosage.

That's funny, i literally said "But yeah sure, it was hyperbole." like 3 posts ago. You're just ignoring what i'm saying so you can strawman.

If you had said it and believed it, then why did you bring forth the referential of my verbatim again? there was no point.

Exactly.

Proof? Again you're repeating yourself instead of giving actual proof.

Just search it up bro, it's obvious.

Search this in google "Is propylene and industrial ethanol safe to consume over a long period"

And as for the proof of the 2nd statement, I did that earlier

"state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully" Yes and that's precisely what you did in the quote that i provided

Yeah you asserted that minoxidil caused neutrophenia. Then i explained "Oh it wasn't actually the minoxidil that caused that" Which i showed using bloodwork, where you could see an increase in neutrophils after the sickness. Therefore, it could indeed not have been minoxidil. There are 3 possible factors, minox, accutane and sickness. All 3 were present during the neutrophenia bloodwork, the sickness was not when neutrophils returned. This is not rocket science

"You clearly included other factors like accutane and sickness after which rendered the assertion useless because those factors could alter the bloodwork"

The sickness was not, was the accutane there?

and secondly, the neutrophils are still at the lower end.

so try again.

It's absolutely relevant, you asked for bloodwork and now you're accusing me of lying about it. Did you want the bloodwork or not???

This wasn't about the bloodwork.

It was about the fact that you didn't have an incentive to lie.

It wasn't relevant, because it wasn't scientific evidence.

Do you have other symptoms of dementia? Because you seem to be forgetting what the replies stemmed from.

That is not a strawman no. Notice the question mark at the end. I'm asking if that's your position. Am i correct in that understanding, that you interpret implications in that manner? I didn't say it was true, i asked if it was, to confirm your position.

It is a strawman because earlier to the statement, I explained what it was inferred from thus even after explaining, if you have to assume or even question that it was inferred from "take my word" then there are two possibilities.

1. you're retarded
2.. it's a strawman

and i didn't wanna be mean, so i assumed the latter

Great so if i continually inductively check my balls for cancer, and i conclude that i don't have it, is that scientific evidence in your mind?

What's the difference between that hypothetical and a peer reviewed pubmed study proving i don't have testicular cancer?
I take scientific evidence as peer-reviewed dude.

Just because someone uses the scientific method does not mean their conclusions are scientific evidence lol

In other words, you just said "a doctor's assessment of bloodwork is not a scientific evidence towards the assessment of side effects from the consumption of a material"

Have you ever been dropped on the head as a child?

Just wondering

 

[trenace450]

You don’t know the dose you're absorbing (topical is usually 5% solution = 50 mg/ml).

a dropper (1 ml) = 50 mg = way higher than standard oral dose

that's what I meant by replication of higher dosage.

Why the fuck would i consume an entire ml????? What you are saying is the concentration is high. Yes we agree, that's why usually people don't take an entire ml like wtf, they use a few drops.

If you had said it and believed it, then why did you bring forth the referential of my verbatim again? there was no point.

I literally didn't in the part that you quoted. But is it serious side effects or like what is it??? If you use "You're gonna die" as hyperbole, i'm guessing you mean that it causes serious and dangerous sides. Am i right, and if so which ones?

Is propylene and industrial ethanol safe to consume over a long period

"Propylene glycol is considered generally safe by US and European authorities. There is only one documented case of toxicity caused by excessive alcohol intake."" "Oral exposure to the small amounts of propylene glycol found in foods and drugs is unlikely to cause toxic effects." Try again jfl

The sickness was not, was the accutane there?

and secondly, the neutrophils are still at the lower end.

so try again.

Yes it was. Also, idc if it was at the lower end. It wouldn't make sense if the minoxidil was the cause at all. Why would it go out of range and suddenly come back for no reason even tho i hadn't quit the minox? It only makes sense if it was caused by sickness.

This wasn't about the bloodwork.

It was about the fact that you didn't have an incentive to lie.

It wasn't relative, because it wasn't scientific evidence.

Incentive to LIE ABOUT THE BLOODWORK. And if the bloodwork itself wasn't relevant for not being scientific evidence. How come you asked for my bloodwork???? Seems odd if you wanted scientific evidence, a little weird, mysterious, quite peculiar.

It is a strawman because earlier to the statement, I explained what it was inferred from thus even after explaining, if you have to assume or even question that it was inferred from "take my word" then there are two possibilities.

Did you not read the part where i said "take my word for it" then or what? Because that was my basis for any claims at all. When i say "Oh my doctor said this" then my basis for that is "take my word for it". Therefore, if you were to infer anything about my method of proving things, it would have to be based on "take my word for it". I'm not the slow one here friend.

In other words, you just said "a doctor's assessment of bloodwork is not a scientific evidence towards the assessment of side effects from the consumption of a material"

Have you ever been dropped on the head as a child?

Just wondering

That is exactly what i said yes, quite literally. On what planet is a doctors assessment = scientific evidence???? They are not a fucking scientist lol, they don't do any research. They just diagnose their patients. Scientific evidence would need peer reviewal, as far as i'm aware, my doctor does not need peer review lol. And i have to be sure, but do you know what peer review means?

 

[Ogionth]

Why the fuck would i consume an entire ml????? What you are saying is the concentration is high. Yes we agree, that's why usually people don't take an entire ml like wtf, they use a few drops.

All I said was that the concentration is high and many here are retards that would not be able to consume the right amount.

I literally didn't in the part that you quoted. But is it serious side effects or like what is it??? If you use "You're gonna die" as hyperbole, i'm guessing you mean that it causes serious and dangerous sides. Am i right, and if so which ones?

Many times, I've said that it didn't mean serious but that it wouldn't be entirely safe.

"i am guessing" you might be really bad at it bro

"Propylene glycol is considered generally safe by US and European authorities. There is only one documented case of toxicity caused by excessive alcohol intake."" "Oral exposure to the small amounts of propylene glycol found in foods and drugs is unlikely to cause toxic effects." Try again jfl

Key word "small amounts" which is why I specified "over a long time" which would cumulatively be a large amount and thus have its side effects.

So one, you miscontrued the argument to your own favor and now secondly, you ignored the other ingredient "industrial ethanol"

"Industrial ethanol (also called denatured alcohol) is not safe to consume — even in small amounts"

Try again IQlet.

Yes it was. Also, idc if it was at the lower end. It wouldn't make sense if the minoxidil was the cause at all. Why would it go out of range and suddenly come back for no reason even tho i hadn't quit the minox? It only makes sense if it was caused by sickness.

Maybe because there was sickness? and it had an effect too, no one said that all of the effect had to come from either the minoxidil or the sickness and it could've came in a distributed amount thus explaining why some returned and the other didn't.

And even then this is speculative since no actual bloodwork with no other factors have been provided by you.

How come you asked for my bloodwork???? Seems odd if you wanted scientific evidence, a little weird, mysterious, quite peculiar.

maybe because the bloodwork would be an accurate way of measuring the side effects? lol, what are you? 8 years old?

The blood work is not just guessed, it's obtained by a scientific method through lab instruments, so ofcourse it's scientific evidence you fucking idiot.

The only reason we didn't consider it much is due to the other factors altering it.

Did you not read the part where i said "take my word for it" then or what? Because that was my basis for any claims at all. When i say "Oh my doctor said this" then my basis for that is "take my word for it". Therefore, if you were to infer anything about my method of proving things, it would have to be based on "take my word for it". I'm not the slow one here friend.

The "take my word" entered way after the "my doctor" and even if your word is taken for it, once you have introduced the doctor, that implies a scientific approach.

There's nothing difficult to understand here.

You just don't want to agree upon anything.

Which is why you have to make strawmans.

That is exactly what i said yes, quite literally. On what planet is a doctors assessment = scientific evidence???? They are not a fucking scientist lol, they don't do any research. They just diagnose their patients. Scientific evidence would need peer reviewal, as far as i'm aware, my doctor does not need peer review lol. And i have to be sure, but do you know what peer review means?

Maybe because his assessment is based upon the blood work that is based upon observations done through lab instruments and thus is scientific? Lol

Cagefuel man,

long time since I've seen someone with this low of an IQ.

 

[trenace450]

All I said was that the concentration is high and many here are retards that would not be able to consume the right amount.

Sure we agree. Doesn't make it inherently dangerous.

Many times, I've said that it didn't mean serious but that it wouldn't be entirely safe.

Sure. So what do you mean by that specifically? I want you to be specific in exactly how it's dangerous. If it's not serious and dangerous, then why would you use death as hyperbole? I wouldn't say "Don't use test you're gonna die" just because some retards can fuck it up and get side minor side effects.

Key word "small amounts" which is why I specified "over a long time" which would cumulatively be a large amount and thus have its side effects.

Alright but you're gonna have to provide evidence.

"Industrial ethanol (also called denatured alcohol) is not safe to consume — even in small amounts"

Ok then am i the outlier? Here's my minoxidils ingredient list
"Minoxidil 5%, propylenglycol, ethanol, water".

Maybe because there was sickness? and it had an effect too, no one said that all of the effect had to come from either the minoxidil or the sickness and it could've came in a distributed amount thus explaining why some returned and the other didn't.

Sure, but that means even if the neutrophils were lowered from the minoxidil. It wasn't lowered enough to actually cause it to go out of range. And keep in mind, i was using significantly high doses, upwards of 25mg daily.

maybe because the bloodwork would be an accurate way of measuring the side effects? lol, what are you? 8 years old?

The blood work is not just guessed, it's obtained by a scientific method through lab instruments, so ofcourse it's scientific evidence you fucking idiot.

The only reason we didn't consider it much is due to the other factors altering it.

So let's be clear. If i was not on accutane or minoxidil, it would be scientific evidence in your mind? I don't view a single subjects bloodwork as scientific evidence. Nobody in their right mind would. My criteria for something being scientific evidence, is much higher than yours.

The "take my word" entered way after the "my doctor" and even if your word is taken for it, once you have introduced the doctor, that implies a scientific approach.

There's nothing difficult to understand here.

You just don't want to agree upon anything.

Which is why you have to make strawmans.

So you define scientific evidence as a doctors word and a single persons bloodwork? If so, then we just disagree fundamentally on what the criteria is for scientific evidence. What i attempted to show, was anecdotal evidence, my anecdote. If i wanted to use scientific evidence, i would have given you a scientific pubmed study that has gone under peer review. That would qualify.
The only reason you think I "implied" anything, is because your criteria for scientific evidence are completely different. And it's not true that i don't want to agree upon anything, i've agreed with several things throughout this.

Maybe because his assessment is based upon the blood work that is based upon observations done through lab instruments and thus is scientific? Lol

The reason why we don't take that as scientific evidence, is precisely because single subject bloodwork will almost always be unreliable. And because doctors disagree 24/7, as they are not scientists. What would qualify, is a study made by actual scientists, with several subjects under controlled circumstances. Then said study would undergo peer review by other actual scientists. There you have scientific evidence.
Induction does not = scientific evidence. I was presenting an anecdote

 

[Ogionth]

Sure we agree. Doesn't make it inherently dangerous.

Never claimed that it inherently did but for most users, aka iqlets, it will be dangerous and even then the 2nd point still stands.

Sure. So what do you mean by that specifically? I want you to be specific in exactly how it's dangerous. If it's not serious and dangerous, then why would you use death as hyperbole? I wouldn't say "Don't use test you're gonna die" just because some retards can fuck it up and get side minor side effects.

The side effects are the one from consuming idustrial ethanol in x amount and propylene glycol in large amounts over cumulation.

Alright but you're gonna have to provide evidence.

Wdym provide evidence, it's from the same statement that you spoke of.

Fucking retard.

Search up "Is it safe to consume x in large amounts"
"Is it safe to consume industrial ethanol*

Fucking iqlet, you thought you'd get away with it huh?

Ok then am i the outlier? Here's my minoxidils ingredient list
"Minoxidil 5%, propylenglycol, ethanol, water".

You're not the outlier because you don't have actual bloodwork, and the bloodwork you have was altered.

And the only evidence we see of you not experiencing side effects is *I believe I didn't*

Sure, but that means even if the neutrophils were lowered from the minoxidil. It wasn't lowered enough to actually cause it to go out of range. And keep in mind, i was using significantly high doses, upwards of 25mg daily.

Wdym, go out of range, it still was lowered and this is just from the minoxidil usage in and of itself

Let alone the effects of propylene taken in large amounts and the industrial ethanol, whose effects went either unnoticed or just weren't measured because most of the effects are hepatotoxic and so is accutane thus they went in disguise with the accutane's effects.

So let's be clear. If i was not on accutane or minoxidil, it would be scientific evidence in your mind? I don't view a single subjects bloodwork as scientific evidence. Nobody in their right mind would. My criteria for something being scientific evidence, is much higher than yours.

It would be scientific evidence, to be atleast considered - ofcourse not enough to deduce a fucking study because it's one fucking patient but at least then your "word" would be believable.

Your criteria for *scientific evidence* is just a made up definition of the word and you can put this into Chat Gpt to tell you what "scientific evidence" is because you clearly struggle with understanding basic English and you had to complicate this to something it never was to begin with

So you define scientific evidence as a doctors word and a single persons bloodwork? If so, then we just disagree fundamentally on what the criteria is for scientific evidence. What i attempted to show, was anecdotal evidence, my anecdote. If i wanted to use scientific evidence, i would have given you a scientific pubmed study that has gone under peer review. That would qualify.
The only reason you think I "implied" anything, is because your criteria for scientific evidence are completely different. And it's not true that i don't want to agree upon anything, i've agreed with several things throughout this.

The reason why we don't take that as scientific evidence, is precisely because single subject bloodwork will almost always be unreliable. And because doctors disagree 24/7, as they are not scientists. What would qualify, is a study made by actual scientists, with several subjects under controlled circumstances. Then said study would undergo peer review by other actual scientists. There you have scientific evidence.
Induction does not = scientific evidence. I was presenting an anecdote

A bloodwork that is obtained through lab instruments and then assessed by people that are professionally trained to
do so is scientific evidence of the assessment of side effects from a drug.

Do you know what "scientific" means?

 

[trenace450]

The side effects are the one from consuming idustrial ethanol in x amount and propylene glycol in large amounts over cumulation

Yeah you're still repeating yourself. What side effects? What's the specific biological mechanism that causes it?

Wdym provide evidence, it's from the same statement that you spoke of.

Fucking retard.

Search up "Is it safe to consume x in large amounts"
"Is it safe to consume industrial ethanol*

Evidence that the ethanol in minoxidil will result in negative side effects. Obviously anyone can say "ethanol is dangerous". Now is it dangerous in the amounts there are in minoxidil?(Mine is low alcohol btw) and are those amounts cumulative? You can't just keep repeating yourself, this discussion is meaningless

ou're not the outlier because you don't have actual bloodwork, and the bloodwork you have was altered.

And the only evidence we see of you not experiencing side effects is *I believe I didn't*

I don't have actual bloodwork, because i was on accutane? Why is that? Why didn't i see the clear negative side effects on the bloodwork? And no i experienced side effects as i told you, bloating and excessive hair growth. I did not experience health consequences or any other side effects. You still have yet to mention the specific side effects i was supposed to experience.

Wdym, go out of range, it still was lowered and this is just from the minoxidil usage in and of itself

I mean, for it to be a negative consequence, the bloodmarker would have to be out of range. Out of range means my body is experiencing adverse health effects. If it was in range, it's not a bad thing. Especially seeing as i was on so many milligrams.

whose effects went either unnoticed or just weren't measured because most of the effects are hepatotoxic and so is accutane thus they went in disguise with the accutane's effects.

No because the accutane was clear. I experienced cholesterol problems when i blasted accutane, there's no question about it. I also experienced physical side effects like jaundice of my eyes and lack of appetite. I know when my liver experiences effects, i've tried it many times. Minoxidil did not cause it.

Your criteria for *scientific evidence* is just a made up definition of the word

My criteria follows scientific consensus. Do you think scientists would ever accept my bloodwork and take that into account? No obviously not, because it is not scientific evidence lol. Just because you use induction, does not mean you have produced scientific evidence.

A bloodwork that is obtained through lab instruments and then assessed by people that are professionally trained to
do so is scientific evidence of the assessment of side effects from a drug.

If it is obtained from 100 people, under controlled circumstances, maybe with a blind placebo group, with said bloodwork interpreted by scientists in that field, then yes.
A doctor with one patient cannot produce scientific evidence for anything. If you wanna call it scientific evidence, of the fact that me specifically, my doctors patient, was not experiencing out of range blood markers, in the ones that were tested, then sure. But it is not at all, scientific evidence of the effects of minoxidil or accutane.

 

[Ogionth]

Yeah you're still repeating yourself. What side effects? What's the specific biological mechanism that causes it?

industrial ethanol contains methanol which is metabolized in the liver to formaldehyde and then to formic acid, both of which are toxic to DNA, proteins, cell membranes, causes mitochondrial poisoning etc

Fucking idiot, you just asked me unironically to prove to you that industrial ethanol is harmful for u

Evidence that the ethanol in minoxidil will result in negative side effects. Obviously anyone can say "ethanol is dangerous". Now is it dangerous in the amounts there are in minoxidil?(Mine is low alcohol btw) and are those amounts cumulative? You can't just keep repeating yourself, this discussion is meaningless

Industrial ethanol, whether in low or high amounts is dangerous and I explained above.

I don't have actual bloodwork, because i was on accutane? Why is that? Why didn't i see the clear negative side effects on the bloodwork? And no i experienced side effects as i told you, bloating and excessive hair growth. I did not experience health consequences or any other side effects. You still have yet to mention the specific side effects i was supposed to experience.

Because in the first one, the sickness you claim altered your neutrophil count

Then even in the 2nd they are at the lower end, and the liver effects are disguised within the accutane mask.

Thus the bloodwork is altered by other factors and it's hard to say whether or not you sctually experienced sides.

I mean, for it to be a negative consequence, the bloodmarker would have to be out of range. Out of range means my body is experiencing adverse health effects. If it was in range, it's not a bad thing. Especially seeing as i was on so many milligrams.

No because the accutane was clear. I experienced cholesterol problems when i blasted accutane, there's no question about it. I also experienced physical side effects like jaundice of my eyes and lack of appetite. I know when my liver experiences effects, i've tried it many times. Minoxidil did not cause it.

Wdym it was clear you fucking retard.

It disguised the hepatotoxicity of the ingredients from industrial ethanol and propylene in large amounts

Just because you think it didn't, doesn't mean it didn't.

My criteria follows scientific consensus. Do you think scientists would ever accept my bloodwork and take that into account? No obviously not, because it is not scientific evidence lol. Just because you use induction, does not mean you have produced scientific evidence.

If it is obtained from 100 people, under controlled circumstances, maybe with a blind placebo group, with said bloodwork interpreted by scientists in that field, then yes.
A doctor with one patient cannot produce scientific evidence for anything. If you wanna call it scientific evidence, of the fact that me specifically, my doctors patient, was not experiencing out of range blood markers, in the ones that were tested, then sure. But it is not at all, scientific evidence of the effects of minoxidil or accutane.

Do you know what the word "scientific evidence" means?

No one uses it randomly for a fucking peer reviewed study, I used it "literally" and so does everyone when they use a word.

You're a fucking idiot who doesn't know basic English and didn't know the meaning of a simple word, neither of "scientific" and nor of "scientific" evidence.

Moreover you committed like 3 strawmans, regarding propylene glycol, ignored the 2nd igredient ethanol, also committed strawmans regarding the implications.

u are embarrassing yourself