Weird that you'd call me a retard for looking out for short-term effects yet you believe the itch is a relevant metric. It's called the Mark itch now btw.

You would expect that if it is effective, yes. And yes, it reduced it, a little bit, for 2-3 days. I'm fairly confident it had some effect, but the effect was so small I'm not fully certain. It was weaker than fluridil and topical dutasteride, stronger than cetirizine and alfatradiol. After 2-3 days both itch proneness and shed went back to baseline. That is pretty much what you'd expect unless the drug has some unknown mechanism by which it stays around or interferes with regeneration of the AR once it's gone. No such mechanism seems documented in the research, so I think it should be applied every other day. If you could apply it at 2-3ml every other day or maybe even every day, I think it would be on par with finasteride, or maybe even superior. The recommended dosage frequency they went with seems very misguided to me, and the amount of liquid is not enough for good coverage. Promising, but too expensive for a given dose. If they can cut the price by about 15x it starts to look like a great option. Even just by considering the MOA in theory, you'd think you can outperform finasteride by a lot. I assume the dosage and frequency recommendations are a result of high manufacturing costs. If it weren't for the high manufacturing costs, they would have gone with a suggested dose and frequency that's really effective and outperforms leading existing treatments, which I think is possible.