Inhibicell (WARNING!)


#1

Inhibicell is a topical “hair inhibitor” made by hers (a division of Perio Products, makers of Nudit depilatories). It’s sold to salons and directly to consumers voa drugstores.

They have the producted packaged for use on the face and for use on body and legs.

There is no published clinical data indicating that Inhibicell “actually slows the re-growth of hair” as they claim.


#2

I briefly tried InhibiCell after verifying with the manufacturer that there were no side effects on people who were born male.

I applied it about once per day to my right leg only, used an entire bottle, no apparent change as compared with left leg. However, I wasn’t consistently using it twice per day as recommended by the company.

The main (active?) ingredient appears to be saw palmetto, an herb that is considered by some to have anti-androgenic properties. Saw palmetto has been shown to be sometimes effective in treating enlarged prostate. Incidentally, some data suggests that saw palmetto may also have anti-estrogenic properties.

I am considering trying it again with a more rigorous adherence to the recommended dosage. I’ll post my results if that happens.

[ July 27, 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Lexie ]


#3

Saw palmetto has been shown to have mild antiandrogenic properties, but there have been no controlled studies of it’s effect on hair when used topically.

Other products such as soy milk at least have some published data suggesting they can affect hair growth. For details, check out the article on this site by doing a search for “soy milk” under this topicals forum or by using the search feature.


#4

From my understanding anti-androgens only inhibit hair growth they do not permanently eradicate hair - e.g., a man taking anti-androgens might reduce body “sex hair” but not facial hair. Apparently, this means that if you were a man you would end up with the sort of body hair you would have if you were women. So even with prescription drugs if you want no hair you have to resort to electrolysis &c. Waxing & tweezing alone (after an initial session) DO affect the hair to thus make it easier to pluck out and also thins the hair - e.g., three hairs growing out of one pore, &c. It is a way to “manage” hair growth. The product “Hers” (after one month of daily use) used in conjunction with shaving, tweezing &/ waxing appears to slow regrowth and lightens the hair. It also works as a nice moisturizer (something you have to use after shaving anyway) but is impractical in terms of price unless you’re a women and use it on some limited area of your body -e.g., below and around the navel, arms, &c. For me I need Crisco size vats, so if anyone out there is hip to some quantities (out of the back of a truck?) at a reasonable price let me know. Considering the price of regular moisturizer lotions that don’t make you smell like a product from K-Mart, it’s a little pricey but definitely competitive.
In any event, this is a great forum and Andrea is providing a real service to “vulnerable” people like me, ripe for the rip. But let’s face the reality of living in a plutocratic fascist pseudo-society -viz., exploitation of people to garnish our money is god in America. Maybe there is a real fountain of youth. Maybe the Hollywood studios dole it to the stars. But if there is no one’s going to sell it to us low life schmucks. They’re going to charge as much as the richest of the rich are willing to pay, Consider, most of the millionaires of today were made during the Carter years where sports contracts &c went unrestricted as acts of Liberty. Actors salaries per movies geometrically increased. All of this was then championed by RayGun, &c as patriotic anti-egalatarianism. Add to that the Rock & Rollers and as a practical effect, we’re crowded out as meaningful consumers and thus the guy with the goods restrict their sales to these others. The DKNY, Versace, Musolinni class. So I see products as “Hers” as marketers saying “Here, try this, see if it works”. This is much the same as the Vitamin industry promoting liver function and other products to enhance the immune system but far less life affecting. Maybe they’re all a rip, but if they have some sort of scientific basis why not give them a try. There are so little real scientific trials in these regards, much of which is the direct result of homophobia, the Satanic overtones of the Divine Androgyne and other Conservative Party bosh. But hey, we get ripped of buying music CDs food or really, whatever is sold to us under the terms of those that rule our lives. So in this light I have to say it’s a littel unfair to criticize a non-prescription anti-androgen as a worthless rip-off because it doesn’t eradicate hair. No anti-androgen does.


#5

From my understanding anti-androgens only inhibit hair growth they do not permanently eradicate hair - e.g., a man taking anti-androgens might reduce body “sex hair” but not facial hair. Apparently, this means that if you were a man you would end up with the sort of body hair you would have if you were women. So even with prescription drugs if you want no hair you have to resort to electrolysis &c. Waxing & tweezing alone (after an initial session) DO affect the hair to thus make it easier to pluck out and also thins the hair - e.g., three hairs growing out of one pore, &c. It is a way to “manage” hair growth. The product “Hers” (after one month of daily use) used in conjunction with shaving, tweezing &/ waxing appears to slow regrowth and lightens the hair. It also works as a nice moisturizer (something you have to use after shaving anyway) but is impractical in terms of price unless you’re a women and use it on some limited area of your body -e.g., below and around the navel, arms, &c. For me I need Crisco size vats, so if anyone out there is hip to some quantities (out of the back of a truck?) at a reasonable price let me know. Considering the price of regular moisturizer lotions that don’t make you smell like a product from K-Mart, it’s a little pricey but definitely competitive.
In any event, this is a great forum and Andrea is providing a real service to “vulnerable” people like me, ripe for the rip. But let’s face the reality of living in a plutocratic fascist pseudo-society -viz., exploitation of people to garnish our money is god in America. Maybe there is a real fountain of youth. Maybe the Hollywood studios dole it to the stars. But if there is no one’s going to sell it to us low life schmucks. They’re going to charge as much as the richest of the rich are willing to pay, Consider, most of the millionaires of today were made during the Carter years where sports contracts &c went unrestricted as acts of Liberty. Actors salaries per movies geometrically increased. All of this was then championed by RayGun, &c as patriotic anti-egalatarianism. Add to that the Rock & Rollers and as a practical effect, we’re crowded out as meaningful consumers and thus the guy with the goods restrict their sales to these others. The DKNY, Versace, Musolinni class. So I see products as “Hers” as marketers saying “Here, try this, see if it works”. This is much the same as the Vitamin industry promoting liver function and other products to enhance the immune system but far less life affecting. Maybe they’re all a rip, but if they have some sort of scientific basis why not give them a try. There are so little real scientific trials in these regards, much of which is the direct result of homophobia, the Satanic overtones of the Divine Androgyne and other Conservative Party bosh. But hey, we get ripped of buying music CDs food or really, whatever is sold to us under the terms of those that rule our lives. So in this light I have to say it’s a littel unfair to criticize a non-prescription anti-androgen as a worthless rip-off because it doesn’t eradicate hair. No anti-androgen does.


#6

blazintommyd writes:
</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”> So in this light I have to say it’s a littel unfair to criticize a non-prescription anti-androgen as a worthless rip-off because it doesn’t eradicate hair. No anti-androgen does. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>My issue comes with those who sell non-prescription anti-androgens with health claims that are not backed with scientific data. Companies frequently claim these products are the “permanent solution to unwanted hair,” a claim which has no scientific merit.

These products have not been shown to have an effect on hair growth under controlled clinical conditions. Until they do, I will point out to consumers that these products sound a little too good to be true. Since we live in a society where consumerism rules, the only hope we have is to fight back by voting with our money. If everyone demanded scientific proof of health claims, entire armies of scam artists would be felled by our collective power.

Sites like mine are a call to arms. Don’t believe the hype! Wake yourselves from the stupor of culture as anesthetic. Shake yourselves from the empty words chanted by the priests upon the altars of capitalism! Viva La Revolutione indeed!

See, I can write like that, too! :wink:

Thanks for the interesting post!


#7

HHHMMM, maybe I am A) an freakin idiot, which is quite possible or B) the cheapo Inhibicell has been reducing my light shoulder and upper back hair…the hair seems to be the same, but the coverage somewhat changed with waxing and application of the product over time??? What do you think??? I really have not a clue…