AHK Copper Peptide

Yeah I think this is still the largest open question. We know which copper peptide was found to be most effective, we know the treatment quantities at which it stimulated the most hair growth, we know a number of potential vehicles suggested by the original advocates (ProCyte), but don't seem to have any evidence about which should be preferred. The original copper peptide patent filings directly address the issue of topical formulation and provide seven potential alternatives, but unfortunately do not run them off in a horse race to establish which is most effective. The few other clinical studies I've found are all based on intradermal injection, therefore provide little guidance on the optimality of a topical vehicle outside of mere solubility. All seven preparations in the patent seem to be adequate for successful dissolution of the AHK-Cu, and since the peptide alone generates the desired effect it largely comes down to the effective dose delivered to the treatment area by each vehicle formulation. Note that the simplest of these is simply purified water.

So in response, yes, I think a distilled water + PG vehicle would certainly dissolve the AHK and that's a pretty common formulation for a variety of topicals. Most of the formulations include an alcohol as well, but it doesn't seem necessary for dissolution, as up to 5% AHK-Cu or more is said to be soluble in water by the original patent filing. Although none of the patent formulations include additional penetrants, the authors casually note that one or more could be included. DMSO is pretty darn cheap so you might think about including it in your preparation to substitute for some of the AHK-Cu; it would allow you to deliver the same amount of the peptide to the treatment area with a lower concentration formula. How much DMSO to include? 30%? 50%? 70%? I really don't know the relationship between AHK-Cu delivery and penetrant concentration. I don't think anyone does at this time. That's why I say vehicle choice is still the largest open question regarding practical AHK-Cu treatment. I opted to leave a lot of the guesswork out and let ProCyte make the decisions for me by using Tricomin as a vehicle. It's available for only $42 for 180mL at Drugstore.com right now, so the price really isn't that bad. The only downside IMO is that it contains amodimethicone, a silicate that may impair the absorption of other topicals you might apply later (like minoxidil). Coco-b (cocamidopropyl betaine) will strip amodimethicone, so you might want to use a shampoo that includes this surfactant if going the Tricomin route.

So in summary: cheapest route is N% AHK-Cu in (100-N)% distilled water. You may be able to achieve the same effective dose even more cheaply by using a penetrant, for example (N-e)% AHK-Cu in [.5*(100-N+e)]% distilled water and [.5*(100-N+e)]% DMSO. This would save you money when the cost benefit of omitting the e quantity of AHK-Cu is greater than the cost of the [.5*(100-N+e)] quantity of DMSO, which should hold true for any appreciable quantity of the former. The question that remains is determining those quantities that yield equivalent delivery of AHK-Cu to the treatment area. To my knowledge, no research has yet addressed that relationship.

Since I can't offer much specific direction on the best vehicle it's a good idea for you to read the few pages on the topic from ProCyte's original patent filling. Review the end of column 8 and columns 9 and 10. The original filing is available at: google.com/patents/US5538945 and was later extended by the patent at: google.com/patents/US6017888. If you become interested and read on, note that AHK specifically is the peptide referred to as "l-alanyl-l-histidyl-l-lysine". Therefore AHK-Cu includes the cationic copper in the notation: l-alanyl-l-histidyl-l-lysine-Cu(2+). Hope that helps.

intradermal injection would surely be the most effective means of application. cheapest, least frequency of recurring treatment.

as an example of efficacy of intradermal vs topical applied see this study on minoxidil:

http://www.edoj.org.eg/vol006/0602/005/paper.pdf

Just a word of caution though is that I wouldn't go crazy with the DMSO or Tween-80 or other penetrants. A result referred to earlier noted that the treatment effect switched from preventing cell apoptosis to actually inducing apoptosis at larger treatment quantities. The difference between 10^-9 moles and 10^-8 moles is a factor of ten: the difference between adding 2g of AHK to a solution and adding 20g of AHK to a solution, so it's not exactly a razor's edge. But since we don't know the degree to which any penetrants increase the effective dose at the treatment area, I would not necessarily strive for absolute maximal absorption for a given quantity of AHK-Cu. A strong relationship between penetrant concentration and effective dose could narrow that gap between 2g and 20g considerably. For example the 20g standalone dose might be reached by just 10g AHK in the presence of a 50% DMSO vehicle, which would imply that the 2g AHK equivalent dose could be achieved with just 1g AHK in 50% DMSO, which would be a benefit to everyone's wallet. But until we know that relationship for sure, it's probably best to err on the side of caution since there's evidence that too much is actually a bad thing. This could mean omitting penetrants from your formulation altogether for the time being.

Also note that the numerical examples given were just plucked out of thin air for expositional purposes, so don't base any inferences on those figures.

LawOfThelema wrote:intradermal injection would surely be the most effective means of application!

Yeah Smurfy if you want to do it cheaply there's your chance. We do end up using a good deal more active ingredient for the benefit of not having to inject a smaller quantity, and in this case there is actually more research to support an optimal treatment quantity when applied in this way. And ID is really nothing anyway, just right under the skin, like an allergy test; you could learn this at the local community college in one class session. One could even make the case that it's a safer alternative by reducing uncertainty about the quantity achieving effective transdermal penetration, making injection a more precise and thus safer method of administration. But with twice or even just once daily applications, the probable irritation and risk of infection may negate any such benefits.

It's true though, we really don't inject enough treatments.

I think there's a lot to gain from both methods. Intradermally, it's safe to assume you're getting complete assimilation, but then comes the problem of dosage. We definitely don't want too saturated a concentration being injected. 2.5-5% works topically, but what percentage truly absorbs? That's the amount we'd need in solution.

Results have been shown topically, so I may start with that. Not to compare it to iodine, but it may absorb and utilize at a rate better tolerated by the skin, and not make it to the bloodstream as quickly. After some digging, I found some information stating that a 1% DMSO was highly effective at penetrating a higher concentration of peptides. As you said, more causes apoptosis, which seems to be 90%+. If we can get away with a concentration of 1% with marked benefits, the risk seems nil. I'd have to look back and find the statement, but it was something like 34% greater penetration into 2mm of skin. Personally I feel as if using this in regions of low BAT would be just as productive as intradermal delivery, due the thinness of the skin. Of course now, the question becomes peptide concentration. As with your previous suggestion with an inverse relationship between Cu and DMSO amounts, I tend to agree in this case, though I err on the side of less DMSO, naturally. Having a greater penetration with just 1%, you could probably get away with lower quantities of Cu, though I'd probably still use the same amount, to not offset the increased uptake.

What I might do is make a topical, use that for a couple months, and switch to intradermal if nothing pans out. Inflammation and active hair loss are long gone, it's a matter of proper tissue renewal now.

Hey guys, I wanted to check back in on this issue. I've been doing a ton of research on copper peptides during the past weeks and would suggest to people applying these treatments to discontinue their use for now. It's clear to me that there has been a lot of misinformation spread, some due to my own naive adoption of communal folklore which I've discovered has no clinical foundation. I do believe that copper peptides will play a beneficial role in our treatment plans, but we need to take a step back and determine best practices for their application over again. As a concrete example, I had always heard that a 2.5% to 5% solution concentration was optimal. I tried to justify this analytically in the linked HLT thread but was only able to do by extrapolation based on assumptions that could surely be called into question.

On closer inspection, treatment at those levels is absolutely not advisable and might actually be dangerous. I will provide more information about this but the discussion is quite lengthy; I'm currently writing a paper to address these issues and cover treatment with copper peptides in tremendous detail but is not quite ready for dissemination yet. I've received some guidance from Hideo Uno on the subject but I'm still waiting on the delivery of some experimental research results by snail mail and hope to have my analysis posted by the end of the week. I'll be sure to provide that information in this thread, but in the meantime I recommend users discontinue AHK-Cu treatment unless it comes as part of a commercial product like Tricomin or Folligen and is used according to package instructions. The "AHK-Cu" solutions from the chop shops like hairevo, salderma, and mpbtreatments do not qualify for such an exception, I suggest you discontinue their use immediately. I apologize for the alarmist conclusion and will provide supporting information as soon as possible - as you can understand the reconciliation of disparate research evidence takes a bit of time and I want to avoid the further basis of conclusions on a selective interpretation of incomplete evidence, but I felt that this warning should be provided sooner rather than later.

define "dangerous". like "bad for your hair" or "bad for your health"?

I'm sorry, I should've been more clear about that. I was implying that when used according to what has become conventional wisdom it may be bad for your hair. We can't completely rule out the possibility of 'bad for your health' by means of copper toxicity, but I haven't seen any particular evidence for that belief at our treatment levels and it wasn't the point I was trying to make here (but should still not be taken as any evidence of safety).

To pre-empt my complete analysis, it's already been established that at some level of exposure there's actually an inhibitory effect on the length of hair follicles, and at even higher levels it becomes cytotoxic to dermal papilla cells. It's difficult to determine exactly what those levels would be in a practical application because the experimental evidence was obtained for cultured follicular units in vitro and treatment amounts were described in terms of molar quantity. Since "AHK-Cu" does not refer deterministically to any particular molecule but is rather shorthand notation for a potentially infinite number of different complexes of Ala-His-Lys to copper(II), determining the molar mass of the stuff you're using to compare to the amounts in that study is only possible via UV/vis absorption spectrometry. The point I'm going to make is that even a 2.5% w/w solution could very realistically be inside that inhibitory effect window. I think this represents the most misunderstood point about the stuff. "AHK-Cu" is a generic naming convention, about as descriptive as 'alcoholic beverage' is in referring to beer, wine, and spirits. That's fine, but when retailers like those I mentioned are selling you a tonic generically labeled 'alcoholic beverage' and telling you how much to drink, they might be be giving you 80 proof liquor and telling you to drink 6-12 cans of it. Treatment dosages should vary according to the specific configuration of the copper:peptide complex at hand, and "2.5%" seems to imply a very beer-strength treatment quantity (a large dose which implies a weak complex). I don't think those retailers even know what specific complex they're selling. So you may be getting a liquor-strength complex with beer-strength instructions and consequently be overdosing yourself by a factor of N.

Further, I don't believe there is any support for a 2.5% solution of any copper:AHK complex. No form of "AHK-Cu" has ever been tested in excess of a 1.25% solution, and that study used only a .25mL application. So if you're applying 1mL of 2.5% solution, that is eight times greater than has ever been examined clinically; 1mL of a 5% solution delivers 16 times more of the complex than has ever been studied, and even that was only conducted in a mouse model. Let me extend that even further: AHK-Cu has never even been studied on a human in vivo at all. Those websites all cite the Pyo et al. study on human cells in vitro for support. That study actually finds AHK-Cu to be devastating to both hair and tissue in amounts of 10^-8 mol or more...why do they think that a 2.5% solution delivers any less than this amount? 1mL of a 2.5% solution actually delivers 6,000 times more than that. And what is the copper:peptide ratio in the complex they're selling? It's critically relevant for determining treatment quantity but goes undisclosed, and probably even unknown to the purveyors themselves. Based on all the conflicting evidence I've found and the better understanding of this particular substance, it's become very clear to me that those vendors are out to make a buck and in doing so give insufficiently informed and reckless advice that could be damaging to your hair and even your general health.

What about the studies mentioned by bryan where they tested copper peptides in vivio on humans?

The study I believe you're referring to appeared as Chapter 16: "Phototrichogram Analysis of Hair Follicle Stimulation: A Pilot Clinical Study with a Peptide-Copper Complex" by Ronald E. Trachy, Leonard M. Patt, Gordon M. Duncan, and Bernard Kalis, in the book "Dermatologic Research Techniques" (1995/6). In that study, only the copper-hexapeptide complex GHKVFV:Cu was tested on humans, and at solution strengths as high as 10% w/w. That particular complex has properties that may be very distinct from AHK-Cu. For example the exposed terminal residue of GHKVFV, the valine moiety, is non-polar and hydrophobic, while that for AHK, the lysine moiety, is polar (+) and thus hydrophilic. There is evidence that the latter is more biologically active than the former when applied topically, and vice versa for ID administration. Suffice it to say that while both are "copper-peptide complexes" they have distinct physical properties and thus information about one may not be directly applicable to the other. The observed distinction between terminal residues' side-chain polarity and the resulting variation in bioactivity levels is just one concrete example.

To use results obtained for one copper-peptide complex as a source of quantitative information about an alternative complex is completely non-permissible. If it were, then the current studies on the multitude of new complexes would not be necessary, as most had already been conducted for GHK and GHK:Cu throughout the 1980s and 90s. The case I'm going to make is actually even stronger than that. There is sufficient variation in physical properties across complexes all of which could be called "AHK-Cu", so information about one form of AHK-Cu (a 2:1 complex of tridentate ligand-to-copper for example) cannot be immediately applied to alternative forms of AHK-Cu (an equimolar concentration of ligand-to-copper, as another). So even if there were a human study on AHK-Cu, it would only provide information about that particular coordination complex, so you'd have to make sure the ambiguous blue powder you were buying as AHK-Cu was in fact the exact same ratio of peptides-to-copper, and then further that the peptides were bonded to the copper as the same way used in the study, as AHK can be coordinated to Cu(2+) in many different ways: with the hydroxide terminus on the lysine residue providing the only donor atom (monodentate), with the same on the histidyl group also providing a donor atom (bidentate), or with each of the three residues providing a donor atom to the copper (tridentate, the preferred configuration for a tripeptide according to ProCyte). Then there can also be multiple or fractional peptides complexed in any of these ways to the copper. All of those potential combinations fit the definition of "AHK-Cu" and all are likely to have different physical properties. We know they do already because each has exhibited different peaks in tests by absorption spectrometry, which provides the only method of empirical distinction to date as far as I know. Therefore one would expect different optimal treatment quantities based on the particular coordination complex at hand. This also implies variation in what would be considered 'safe' treatment quantities even within the class of complexes referred to as AHK-Cu.

ProCyte understood this. If you read carefully, they actually never even used the term "AHK-Cu", they only make reference to complexes of "AHK:Cu", with the understanding that there are a potentially infinite number of distinct substances that can be synthesized from a coordination of the AHK tripeptide to copper(II) according to a variety of alternative peptide bonds and molar ratios of the two. And in providing experimental results, ProCyte always included the specific molar ratio of peptide-to-copper that described the particular AHK:Cu complex under study. If that were not a relevant piece of information, there is no reason why it would be systematically disclosed right next to the X mg or X % w/w treatment quantity without fail in ProCyte's reporting of experimental results. That the Pyo et al. study omitted this information seems to be the anomaly, and I've already contacted the principal investigator in that study and still await a response. The fact is that the ratio of peptide-to-copper in the final product of synthesis is as critically relevant a detail about treatment quantity as the % w/w concentration. If you're applying a 1:1 complex at levels deemed safe or effective based on a 2:1 (peptide:metal) complex...then you have double the expected quantity of elemental copper stored in depot in your scalp's dermal tissue. That may become an issue for you.

So when Hairevo claims: "The recommended percentage of AHK-Cu Copper Tri-Peptides to use within your custom formula is 2.5 to 5%", on which particular complex are they basing that presumption? Nevermind that this amount seems way, way, too high for any AHK-Cu complex given the available data. ProCyte never reported topical tests of any AHK-Cu complex over .5% even in a mouse model. Where the heck are they getting 2.5 to 5%? Not only is there no evidence that this level is optimal, there is no evidence that this level is safe, and in fact there is stronger evidence that this level is not safe for hair and dermal tissue - evidence from the very study that each of the three named retailers cites as their sole piece of evidence. It seems doubtful they even read that reference.


I love what these outfits are trying to do for everybody, but just because it's possible to have a company generically synthesize something for research purposes doesn't mean it's safe to apply any random amount within a centimeter of our brains. It seems that whoever led the community to copper peptides and suggested best practices for their administration did so with an insufficient understanding of the science involved. Those gray-market treatment dealers and videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xZKqrMF-bA serve to perpetuate that misunderstanding. I have more faith in ProCyte's and Dr. Pickart's knowledge of the specific biology, that's why my recommendation at present is to avoid all bulk AHK-Cu and its derivative products that aren't specifically Tricomin or Folligen, and even then to follow package instructions since there is demonstrable risk in overexposure. Pyo et al. has shown us that AHK-Cu means playing with live ammo; this is not the benign, innocuous substance we should max out on like fiber, as we may have initially been led to believe.

bump...

Caustic / Nid.. thoughts on TheLastHairbender's posts??

Hey there, I apologize for not having updated this thread with a more complete discussion. I had began preparing a brief review of the available research just to provide information to the hair loss community, but in the process garnered some support among researchers in the field such that the project has become a more comprehensive survey paper to establish the current state of knowledge regarding this particular peptide. To that end I've received some out-of-print study results from Dr. Uno, who was among the original ProCyte researchers on this project, and still await some additional information from the FDA and the Korean research team.

Of course I'll provide the draft of the paper when ready for circulation, but in a nutshell it appears that the belief in a 2.5% AHK-Cu solution's safety and optimality stems from a press release from 1997 in which ProCyte announced favorable results in Phase II clinical trials of the AHK-Cu peptide in Tricomin. The initial promoters/resellers of AHK-Cu in the hair loss community heralded this as evidence that this is the correct dosage, citing the summary news reports of those 'FDA Phase II trials'. Unfortunately, it appears those promoters did not exercise the necessary skepticism about this finding.

First of all, no study results were ever released for those trials. The only information in the public domain is contained in the self-reported press release. Unless someone obtained those unreleased study results and just decided not to share them with the community, I think we can all agree that the brief summary of results in a company-provided press release is not sufficient evidence for a treatment's safety or efficacy. It is also worth noting that ProCyte paid to settle an investor lawsuit over misleading presentation of clinical results of its GHK product Iamin the previous year. I would be particularly wary of relying on unreviewed and unapproved self-published information in this context.

Second, and most disturbingly, the results referenced in the press release were not FDA trials at all. I'm not sure where that misinterpretation first cropped up, but looking at that 1997 press release again, you'll notice that ProCyte is careful not to use the term "FDA", they reference only "Phase II clinical trials". Dr. Loren Pickart, ProCyte's lead AHK-Cu researcher at that time, has confirmed that those were not FDA trials, but rather internal "Phase II trials". The AHK-Cu peptide has never been submitted for even Phase I FDA trials. And the common defense that something is a perfect treatment but the company lacked the funds to support proper FDA trials loses traction in this case, as ProCyte had sponsored Phase I, II, and III trials with the FDA for two other peptide products in the previous year.

That the company's press release touting the effectiveness of the AHK peptide should have been viewed more skeptically is supported by the press release itself, which describes the study in question as taking place with 36 men with mpb. FDA phase II trials require a minimum sample size of 100, and typically closer to 300, in the treatment group alone, so a sample of 200-600 is required for the full study. It appears that someone read that press release, assumed that Phase II meant FDA Phase II, placed an order with a synthesis lab and started selling us all 2.5% AHK-Cu claiming that it was safe and effective. FYI, bulk AHK-Cu runs $10k-$15k per kilogram. The retail markup to $40-$60 per gram thus provides a strong profit incentive that should not be overlooked when considering the safety of relying strictly on a retail outlet for an unbiased presentation of facts.

Third, there also seems to be some confusion regarding the reference to the AHK-Cu peptide. In all of the ProCyte-released research on the peptide I've been able to acquire, it is referred to internally as PC1234, as late as 1996. The questionable press release from 1997, however, refers to the peptide in question as PC1358. It may have been an internal renaming, but no additional information about these internal references seems to be available in the public domain. To wit, there is no available research referencing a peptide as PC1358, the subject of the press release. We can speculate that they are one-and-the-same, but they may also be AHK-Cu bound in different molar ratios of peptide-to-ligand, and thus very distinct substances with distinct physical properties.

...Is it clear how ridiculous the speculation must be at this point? "We think 2.5% AHK-Cu is ok to use because the company released a press report referencing the effectiveness of a peptide with a different name but which we think is actually the same one even though we never saw the study it referred to and have no other basis on which to think that the PC1234 from previous studies is the same as the PC1358 in the press release. And yes the studies on PC1234 never exceeded dosages of 1.25% but we think that they changed the name, tested it at higher strengths, released a report to excite investors, and that's enough to convince us that the higher dosage is right for you. Are we sure that the blue stuff we had synthesized is the same as either PC1234 or PC1358 in terms of the ratio of peptide-to-copper? No we're not. In fact we don't even know what the ratio of peptide-to-copper in our stuff is, even though the available studies always make specific reference to this ratio in the presentation of any trial results. I guess we just didn't understand everything about this stuff when we bought $20,000 worth, but now we have a bunch of it so you should just buy it, use it in egregious quantities, and then once this supply is all gone we'll go back and do the research again and try to be sure about what we're buying and selling next time." ....Just watch: mpbtreatments et al are going to change their AHK-Cu pages to say that it's at a 1:1 or 1.1:1 molar ratio of peptide-to-copper (they wouldn't say 2:1 because that molecule is 770u and possibly too large for transdermal delivery). I would, at the very least, demand a recent CoA making specific reference to the test applicant before making any future purchases.

Hopefully this brief bit of information will support my point that you may want to exercise caution in your use of AHK-Cu at the present time. The full-scale review I will present will provide more specific information about treatment quantities in an effort to lead the interested party to what is known to be a safe and effective dose. To preview those results - the peptide has been found to maximally effective in formula concentrations as low as .67%, with the 1.25% concentration providing no incremental benefit. That's right: a 1.25% solution did not outperform a .67% solution, and those are the two highest strengths that have ever been tested in humans. So these websites selling the stuff telling you to use a 2.5% solution are recommending 4 times the dose found to be maximally effective. Recommending a 5% solution is damn near criminal...how can you tell someone to use 8 times the research-supported dose, still 4 times higher than has ever even been tested? Given what we know about minoxidil's effectiveness at 5% and safety up to 15%, that's like telling someone to use a solution of 60% minoxidil. This is dangerous negligence at the very least.

In sum, this provides direct and convincing evidence that the online treatment shops are not exercising the necessary due diligence as it relates to your wellbeing. It seems they are willing to bite on anything that looks promising and package it up with instructions from the first Google search result, meanwhile convincing you it's safe and effective with a hard-to-refute backstory for why such a perfect product didn't make it to market through the official channels. For those of you dousing yourselves daily with RU58841, CB-03-01, ASC-J9, OC000459 and similar, I think the results from the AHK-Cu research set a dangerous precedent for you to continue relying on what mpbtreatments et al. are telling you. For your benefit, I will be skeptically surveying the available literature on those substances once this project is wrapped up.

Bumping this, as I'd like to see some more discussion. I had high hopes for AHK-Cu, but now I'm worried that there's no way for us to get the exact right copper peptide we're looking for.

Ibrium wrote:Bumping this, as I'd like to see some more discussion. I had high hopes for AHK-Cu, but now I'm worried that there's no way for us to get the exact right copper peptide we're looking for.

I agree, I would think enough people have tried AHK-Cu to get some feedback

Id very strongly suspect the people usually contacting the chemical suppliers usually specify the correct peptide.

thelasthairbender,

Thank you very much for your hard work in researching this compound. Please keep us informed with any new technical findings about these experimental treatments.

I appreciate all the scientific information here. All I know is one thing...

I have been using AHK/Rejuveplex combo and have been re-growing my hairline. Simple.

hairtest wrote:I appreciate all the scientific information here. All I know is one thing...

I have been using AHK/Rejuveplex combo and have been re-growing my hairline. Simple.

Any specifics you're doing? I'm doing AHK/Rejuveplex too. It's been a month and still waiting to notice any difference on my hairline. If anything the skin seems to be becoming a little lighter in color maybe.

Smurfy wrote:

hairtest wrote:I appreciate all the scientific information here. All I know is one thing...

I have been using AHK/Rejuveplex combo and have been re-growing my hairline. Simple.

Any specifics you're doing? I'm doing AHK/Rejuveplex too. It's been a month and still waiting to notice any difference on my hairline. If anything the skin seems to be becoming a little lighter in color maybe.

Morning. 5 minutes after shower. Rub in for a few good minutes. 2.5% solution. Emu oil opposite end of the day. You must give it time.

hairtest wrote:

Smurfy wrote:

hairtest wrote:I appreciate all the scientific information here. All I know is one thing...

I have been using AHK/Rejuveplex combo and have been re-growing my hairline. Simple.

Any specifics you're doing? I'm doing AHK/Rejuveplex too. It's been a month and still waiting to notice any difference on my hairline. If anything the skin seems to be becoming a little lighter in color maybe.

Morning. 5 minutes after shower. Rub in for a few good minutes. 2.5% solution. Emu oil opposite end of the day. You must give it time.

Gotcha! Thanks. I use it nightly, but the skin seems a bit oily and doesn't feel like it's absorbing too well. Spreads much better after a shower, for sure. I rub it in for 30 seconds, I'll spend more time on it.

hairtest wrote:I appreciate all the scientific information here. All I know is one thing...

I have been using AHK/Rejuveplex combo and have been re-growing my hairline. Simple.

Congratulations on your success! I hope you make a significant recovery. Is the Rejuv/AHK combo the only thing you have changed in your regimen recently (at least 3-6 months)?

TrueGround wrote:

hairtest wrote:I appreciate all the scientific information here. All I know is one thing...

I have been using AHK/Rejuveplex combo and have been re-growing my hairline. Simple.

Congratulations on your success! I hope you make a significant recovery. Is the Rejuv/AHK combo the only thing you have changed in your regimen recently (at least 3-6 months)?

Nothing changed. The next three months should be interesting. Hair cycles.

Yeah, please definitely keep us posted! Don't really care about pictures, but that would be nice to accompany your testimony.

Any update from anyone in regards to AHK-Cu ?
Also I would like to know if I purchase the power, is it something that can be mixed right into a bottle of minoxidil?
Any opinions on cream as opposed to the liquid?
Thanks for everyones input.
MS

MiamiSteve wrote:Any update from anyone in regards to AHK-Cu ?
Also I would like to know if I purchase the power, is it something that can be mixed right into a bottle of minoxidil?
Any opinions on cream as opposed to the liquid?
Thanks for everyones input.
MS

I just placed by 4th order. I would recommend using Rejuveplex. It is helping regrow my hairline.

Progress=Great. Pics will come soon enough. They are too easy to manipulate in my opinion so I will REALLY have to show some ridiculous growth. I am talking full restoration. As of now - my opinion that you couldn't regrow your hairline has been reversed. Slowly but surely.