<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Can Topical Fluridil Block DHT and Stop Hair Loss?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.regrowhair.com/non-surgical-hair-loss-treatments/fluridil-and-hair-loss/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.regrowhair.com/non-surgical-hair-loss-treatments/fluridil-and-hair-loss/</link>
	<description>Sponsored by the Hair Loss Learning Center.org</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:31:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Drelbner</title>
		<link>http://www.regrowhair.com/non-surgical-hair-loss-treatments/fluridil-and-hair-loss/comment-page-1/#comment-7470</link>
		<dc:creator>Drelbner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:57:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.regrowhair.com/?p=1101#comment-7470</guid>
		<description>If Fluridil it is truly hydrophobic, wouldn&#039;t it still break down into possibly harmful base components that could still have negative side effects in the body? Also, being a topical (i.e. non-ingestable), why would in not be approved for use in the US as an OTC treatment?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Fluridil it is truly hydrophobic, wouldn&#8217;t it still break down into possibly harmful base components that could still have negative side effects in the body? Also, being a topical (i.e. non-ingestable), why would in not be approved for use in the US as an OTC treatment?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
