Who writes this, and the rules it is written under

What this site covers

One lane, deliberately: scalp micropigmentation, hair systems, keratin fibres and concealers — the routes that change how hair loss looks rather than what it does. Surgery, drugs, devices and supplements are not covered here, and where they come up they come up as context, never as a recommendation.

Who writes it

Writers and researchers, working from published papers, regulator pages and companies' own wording. No clinician has reviewed anything on this site, and nothing here has been checked by a doctor, a dermatologist or a tattoo practitioner. There is no medical reviewer, there is no reviewer byline, and you will not find the phrase “medically reviewed” anywhere on these pages, because it would not be true.

That is a limit, not a disclaimer to skim past. A general-information site can tell you what a regulator published and what a study measured. It cannot look at your scalp, and several of the things that look like ordinary thinning are not.

The rules this site works under

• Nothing fragile gets printed undated. A price, a statute, a study figure or a regulator's wording arrives here with the page it came off and the day somebody opened that page.
• What cannot be verified is left out, not hedged. A softened guess still reads as a fact. That is why there is no SMP price on this site.
• No before-and-after imagery, ever. No results galleries, no patient photographs, no illustrated heads implying an outcome. Every drawing here is invented, abstract and made of dots.
• No testimonials and no invented experience. Nobody on this site tried anything. There are no user quotes, no star ratings from readers, no “we tested it”.
• No studio, clinic, artist or surgeon is named, ranked or reviewed. Not for money, not for free. A named recommendation from a site that cannot examine the work would be worth less than nothing.
• No drug is dosed, recommended or compared here. Medication is a prescriber's conversation and it is not this site's subject.

How a product score is worked out

Scores appear rarely, and only on consumer products with published prices and published claims — never on a procedure, a provider or a person. The scale is out of ten and it is applied to four things, weighted equally:

1. Does the published mechanism hold up? Is there an independent description of how the product works, and does the maker's claim match it?
2. Are the limits stated? A product that tells you where it fails scores above one that does not.
3. Is the price published and checkable? A price you can read on the vendor's own page beats a price you have to ask for.
4. What is the cost of stopping? How much of your money and how much of your scalp is committed if you change your mind next month.

A score never reflects an outcome, because outcomes are not measured here. Anything scoring above eight would have to be cheap, honest about its limits and trivially reversible — which tells you the shape of what wins on this site.

Corrections

Sources move, prices change and papers get superseded. If something here is wrong, or a link has rotted, tell the studio and it gets fixed with the date of the fix recorded. Pages carry the day their sources were read, not a manufactured freshness date.

Money

A small number of outward links are paid, each one marked where it sits, and the whole arrangement — including the programmes this site turned down — is set out on the affiliate disclosure. No payment has ever decided what a page says, and the free answer is printed on every commercial page even though it pays nothing.