Fast-Acting Hair Loss Treatment
According to the American Academy of Dermatology¹, hereditary hair loss affects over 80 million people in the United States, and early treatment often leads to the most noticeable improvement. This highlights the importance of addressing thinning hair before it progresses to advanced stages. Choosing a proven Hair Loss Treatment can transform early signs of loss into a healthier, fuller look.
Targeting hair loss effectively requires a combination of medical precision, targeted nutrient delivery, and hormone regulation. The following solutions combine ingredients with proven clinical benefits, providing individuals with the tools they need to restore strength and volume.
Cedar Oral Hair is formulated for men experiencing male pattern hair loss. This once-daily oral capsule contains Finasteride 1 mg, Minoxidil 2.5 mg, and Biotin 5 mg. The Minoxidil enhances blood circulation to the scalp, ensuring hair follicles receive the essential nutrients they need, promoting thicker growth. Finasteride works by blocking dihydrotestosterone (DHT), a hormone derived from testosterone that is the primary cause of male pattern baldness.A clinical review from the National Institutes of Health² found that combining finasteride and minoxidil yields significantly higher hair regrowth rates compared to using either treatment alone, with 94% of patients experiencing improvement. This supports Cedar Oral Hair's multi-action approach for preserving and regrowing hair.
Choosing Vita Bella means more than just getting a product. The service is built around accessibility, medical expertise, and quality assurance to ensure each customer receives the best possible outcome.
Every product offered by Vita Bella is backed by scientific research and tested for safety and efficacy. The formulas combine active ingredients with decades of medical evidence showing positive outcomes for individuals facing hair loss. Clients can trust that their Hair Loss Treatment is not just popular but truly effective.
Hair loss does not have to be a permanent reality. With the right blend of science-backed ingredients, medical oversight, and consistent use, regrowth and restoration are achievable. Vita Bella provides more than just medication—it offers ongoing support and proven solutions tailored to each client.
TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Business News
a day ago
- Time Business News
Fast-Acting Hair Loss Treatment
Hair loss can feel like a slow erosion of confidence, especially when you see more strands on your pillow or in the shower than you remember. Modern life, stress, and environmental factors can accelerate the process, making it challenging to maintain healthy, strong hair. The good news is that science-backed solutions now target thinning at the root people are realizing that waiting too long to address hair thinning only makes the recovery journey longer. Early intervention provides the best results and can help prevent permanent hair damage. According to the American Academy of Dermatology¹, hereditary hair loss affects over 80 million people in the United States, and early treatment often leads to the most noticeable improvement. This highlights the importance of addressing thinning hair before it progresses to advanced stages. Choosing a proven Hair Loss Treatment can transform early signs of loss into a healthier, fuller look. Targeting hair loss effectively requires a combination of medical precision, targeted nutrient delivery, and hormone regulation. The following solutions combine ingredients with proven clinical benefits, providing individuals with the tools they need to restore strength and volume. Cedar Oral Hair is formulated for men experiencing male pattern hair loss. This once-daily oral capsule contains Finasteride 1 mg, Minoxidil 2.5 mg, and Biotin 5 mg. The Minoxidil enhances blood circulation to the scalp, ensuring hair follicles receive the essential nutrients they need, promoting thicker growth. Finasteride works by blocking dihydrotestosterone (DHT), a hormone derived from testosterone that is the primary cause of male pattern baldness.A clinical review from the National Institutes of Health² found that combining finasteride and minoxidil yields significantly higher hair regrowth rates compared to using either treatment alone, with 94% of patients experiencing improvement. This supports Cedar Oral Hair's multi-action approach for preserving and regrowing hair. Choosing Vita Bella means more than just getting a product. The service is built around accessibility, medical expertise, and quality assurance to ensure each customer receives the best possible outcome. Every product offered by Vita Bella is backed by scientific research and tested for safety and efficacy. The formulas combine active ingredients with decades of medical evidence showing positive outcomes for individuals facing hair loss. Clients can trust that their Hair Loss Treatment is not just popular but truly effective. Hair loss does not have to be a permanent reality. With the right blend of science-backed ingredients, medical oversight, and consistent use, regrowth and restoration are achievable. Vita Bella provides more than just medication—it offers ongoing support and proven solutions tailored to each client. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Buzz Feed
2 days ago
- Buzz Feed
11 Must-Have Clinique Products For Your Daily Routine
A Dramatically Different Moisturizing Lotion+ featuring pure glycerin and urea (a humectant that draws in moisture and halts dry-skin triggers) to enrich the skin and provide up to eight hours of hydration. Promising review: "I have used this moisturizer for literally decades. I used it through my teenage years and countless acne treatments, including Accutane. I use it now during the dreaded changes of perimenopause, drying my skin. This product gently moisturizes without making you feel greasy or sticky and never causes breakouts. It's wonderful for my current combination skin, and I could never recommend it enough!" —DanaPrice: $7+ (available in four sizes)This is also available in a lightweight moisturizing gel for combination and oilier skin types. An All About Clean Liquid Facial Soap — a game-changing cleanser that gives you that squeaky-clean feeling without ever stripping your skin dry. The ultra-gentle formula creates a soft, nondrying lather (thanks to soothing sucrose), gently melting away dirt and debris while keeping your natural moisture intact. Promising review: "I absolutely love this liquid soap. It actually CLEANS the face, and I love the feeling." —Lara JPrice: $8 (available in three sizes and three formulas) A Redness Solutions Daily Relief Cream because you're looking for a way to fight against angry, inflamed skin and rosacea. The lightweight yet rich cream is ideal whether you're calming down flush or finalizing your nighttime ritual. Believe me, this calming gem is the kind of beauty pick that feels like a hug in a jar! (You're welcome). Read more about choosing skincare products if you have rosacea at the American Academy of Dermatology. Promising review: "This cream has such a rich, satisfying feeling, soothes my skin, erases redness, dries quickly; where have you been all my life; I only wish I could buy a huge vat of it for my sensitive skin." —JoetherunnerPrice: $65 A Take The Day Off Cleansing Balm that melts away SPF, waterproof makeup, and daily pollutants while feeling like a mini spa moment. Packed with nourishing safflower seed oil to hydrate and pamper your skin, this hero product swoops in without stripping or leaving a greasy film behind. Promising review: "This is the best makeup remover I've ever used. It easily removes water-resistant full coverage foundation and waterproof makeup, lipstick, etc. After I rub the product around my face (sometimes adding a little warm water to the mix), I then run a clean washcloth under warm water to wipe everything off. I have sensitive skin and am prone to breakouts with certain products. This product doesn't cause breakouts and my skin feels hydrated and silky smooth when I'm done." —TeresaPrice: $15+ (available in three sizes) A Pep-Start Daily UV Protector Broad Spectrum SPF 50 for glowing sun protection. This dewy formula will have you feeling like a glazed donut, for real! The only downside is that you'll have tons of strangers come up to you asking you what your skincare routine is. Promising reviews: "This is the best mineral sunscreen! It has a nice tint that evens out my complexion and tones down redness. Doesn't settle into fine lines or wrinkles. My super sensitive skin can wear this and reapply without any breakouts or oily buildup! Also does great under primer and foundation or under tinted moisturizer. I am so happy I found this!" —Happy Susan"'You look so good!' 'You look happy and healthy!' 'Your coloring is so fresh!!' Without fail, this is how my family responds when I wear Pep Start sun protector. My skin looks glowy and dewy." —BesidesthelaundryPrice: $29 An All About Eyes Brightening Serum Concentrate featuring a cooling metal-tip applicator for reducing the appearance of dark circles. It's packed with skin-loving ingredients like vitamin C, hylaronic acid, and retinol, making it an ideal do-it-all product. Consider this the eye-area multitasker your beauty routine has been craving! Promising review: "I've been using the All About Eyes Brightening Serum Concentrate for a few weeks now, and I'm really impressed with the results! This serum is lightweight and absorbs quickly into the skin, leaving my under-eye area feeling refreshed and hydrated. It's made a noticeable difference in reducing dark circles and puffiness, which I've struggled with for years. The brightening effect is subtle yet effective, and my under-eye area looks much more awake and rejuvenated. I also love that it's gentle on the skin and doesn't cause any irritation. Overall, it's become a staple in my skincare routine! Highly recommend it for anyone looking for a boost of brightness and hydration around the eyes." —JaspreetPrice: $49 A Clinical Repair AM/PM Retinoid Balm featuring 1% advanced retinoid and hyaluronic acid to help instantly plump, smooth, and soften even the most stubborn fine lines. The super-convenient stick format lets you dot delicate areas like crow's feet, '11' lines, and smile lines with precision. Plus, it's gentle enough to use morning and night! Promising reviews: "Such a little skin-saver in a stick form. Useful to have handy as needed. Only need to remember to apply SPF after using. Prefer to have this as a spot-treatment for areas of concern, rather than applying so many serums and creams all the time!" —Clinique Customer"From the first day, my wrinkles have decreased! I highly recommend it." —IrynaPrice: $36 A Moisture Surge100H Auto-Replenishing Hydrator formulated with aloe bioferment and hyaluronic acid to help give your complexion additional hydration. Whether you've been traveling, spending time in the sun, or skipping out on sleep, your face could always use more moisture! Promising review: "The Moisture Surge 100H Auto-Replenishing Hydrator is hands down one of the best moisturizers I've ever used! The texture is lightweight and refreshing, almost like a cool drink of water for the skin. It glides on smoothly and gets absorbed instantly, leaving my face feeling plump, dewy, and deeply hydrated without any stickiness." —SatPrice: $17+ (available in five sizes) A Clinique Pop Lip + Cheek Oil for giving you a very natural-looking flush (ie, a sun-kissed glow without the sun damage). You'll love the silky smooth texture and the buildable formula for your cheeks and lips. Just trust me and add this to your cart, diva. Promising review: "Perfect for a natural look! I got the shade Nude Honey and was worried it might look too dramatic on me, but it's buildable and beautiful on the lips. On the cheeks, it blends out quite a bit for a very sheer and natural look, but it's also buildable. I also like that it doesn't feel sticky at all." —StephiPrice: $27 (available in three shades) A Quickliner For Eyes Eyeliner, so you can make your gorgeous eyes pop with your fave mascara. Reviewers love how smoothly it glides on *and* doesn't smudge easily. Promising review: "Clinique Quickliner For Eyes is the ultimate no-fuss eyeliner — smooth, precise, and perfect for everyday definition. The retractable pencil glides on effortlessly without tugging, and the color payoff is rich, even, and long-lasting." —JaspreetPrice: $28 (available in 11 colors) A Turnaround Accelerated Renewal Serum that encourages cell turnover to bring some brightness back to dull skin in need of some TLC. And it even helps defuse the environmental aggressors that can slow renewal! Say hello to that glass skin you've been coveting! Promising review: "Clinique's Turnaround Accelerated Renewal Serum is a true skin-transforming product! ✨ It gently resurfaces the skin, leaving it soft, smooth, and radiant. The lightweight serum absorbs quickly without any stickiness, making it perfect for layering with other skincare products." —JaspreetPrice: $60
Atlantic
2 days ago
- Atlantic
The Two-Word Phrase Unleashing Chaos at the NIH
Since January, President Donald Trump's administration has been clear about its stance on systemic racism and gender identity: Those concepts—championed by a 'woke' mob, backed by Biden cronies—are made-up, irrelevant to the health of Americans, and unworthy of inclusion in research. At the National Institutes of Health, hundreds of research studies on health disparities and transgender health have been abruptly defunded; clinical trials focused on improving women's health have been forced to halt. Online data repositories that contain gender data have been placed under review. And top agency officials who vocally supported minority representation in research have been ousted from their jobs. These attacks have often seemed at odds with the administration's stated goals of fighting censorship in science at the NIH and liberating public health from ideology. But its members behave as though they have no dogma of their own —just a wholehearted devotion to scientific rigor, in the form of what the nation's leaders have repeatedly called 'gold-standard science.' This pretense—that the government can obliterate entire fields of study while standing up for free inquiry—is encapsulated by what's become a favored bit of MAHA rhetoric: All research is allowed, the administration likes to say, so long as it's 'scientifically justifiable.' On Friday, the phrase scientifically justified appeared several times in a statement by the NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that set the agenda for his agency and ordered a review of all research to make sure that it fits with the agency's priorities. 'I have advocated for academic freedom throughout my career,' he wrote in a letter to his staff that accompanied the statement. 'Scientists must be allowed to pursue their ideas free of censorship or control by others.' But his announcement went on to warn that certain kinds of data, including records of people's race or ethnicity, may not always be worthy of inclusion in research. Only when its consideration of those factors has been 'scientifically justified,' he wrote, would a project qualify for NIH support. That message may seem unimpeachable—in keeping, even, with the priorities of the world's largest public funder of biomedical research: NIH-backed studies should be justified in scientific terms. But the demand that Bhattacharya lays out has no formal criteria attached to it. Scientific justifiability is, to borrow Bhattacharya's description of systemic racism, a 'poorly-measured factor.' It's imprecise at best and, at worst, a subjective appraisal of research that invites political meddling. (Neither the NIH nor the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees it, responded to my questions about the meaning and usage of this phrase.) Judging scientific merit has always been one of the NIH's most essential tasks. Tens of thousands of scientists serve on panels for the agency each year, scouring applications for funding; only the most rigorous projects are selected to receive portions of the agency's $47 billion budget—most of which goes to research outside the agency itself. All of the thousands of grants the agency has terminated this year under the Trump administration were originally vetted in this way, by subject-matter experts with deep knowledge of the underlying science. Many of the studies have been recast, in letters from the agency, as being 'antithetical to the scientific inquiry,' indifferent to 'biological realities,' or otherwise scientifically unjustified. The same language from Bhattacharya's email appears in other recent NIH documents. Last week, an official at the agency sent me a copy of a draft policy that, if published, would prohibit the collection of all data on people's gender (as opposed to their sex) by any of the agency's researchers and grantees, regardless of their field of study. It allows for an exception only when the consideration of gender is 'scientifically justified.' The gender-data policy was uploaded to an internal portal typically reserved for agency guidance that is about to be published, but has since been removed. (Its existence was first reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education.) When reached for comment, an HHS official told The Atlantic that the policy had been shot down by NIH leadership, but declined to provide any further details on the timing of that shift, or who, exactly, had been involved in the policy's drafting or dismissal. Still, if any version of this policy remains under consideration at the agency, its aims would be in keeping with others that are already in place. One NIH official told me that one of the agency's 27 institutes and centers, the National Institute for General Medical Sciences, has, since April, sent out hundreds of letters to grantees noting, 'If this award involves human subjects research, information regarding study participant 'gender' should not be collected. Rather, 'sex' should be used for data collection and reporting purposes.' Payments to those researchers, the official said, have been made contingent on the scientists agreeing to those terms within two business days. 'Most have accepted,' the official told me, 'because they're desperate.' (The current and former NIH officials who spoke with me for this article did so under the condition of anonymity, to be able to speak freely about how both Trump administrations have affected their work.) Collecting data on study participants' gender has been and remains, in many contexts, scientifically justified—at least, if one takes that to mean supported by the existing literature on the topic, Arrianna Planey, a medical geographer at the University of North Carolina, told me. Evidence shows that sex is not binary, that gender is distinct from it, and that acknowledging the distinction improves health research. In its own right, gender can influence—via a mix of physiological, behavioral, and social factors—a person's vulnerability to conditions and situations as diverse as mental-health issues, sexual violence, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases, and cancer. The Trump administration has expressed some interest in gender-focused research—but in a way that isn't justified by the existing science in the field. In March, NIH officials received a memo noting that HHS had been directed to fund research into 'regret and detransition following social transition as well as chemical and surgical mutilation of children and adults.' That framing presupposes the conclusions of such studies and ignores the most pressing knowledge gaps in the field: understanding the long-term outcomes of transition on mental and physical health, and how best to tailor interventions to patients. (Bhattacharya's Friday statement echoed this stance, specifically encouraging 'research that aims to identify and treat the harms these therapies and procedures have potentially caused to minors.') According to the draft prohibition on collecting gender data, NIH-employed scientists would be eligible for an exception only when the scientific justification for their work is approved by Matthew Memoli, the agency's principal deputy director. Memoli has played this role before. After Trump put out his executive order seeking to abolish government spending on DEI, Memoli— then the NIH's acting director —told his colleagues that the agency's research into health disparities could continue as long as it was 'scientifically justifiable,' two NIH officials told me. Those officials I spoke with could not recall any instances in which NIH staff successfully lobbied for such studies to continue, and within weeks, the agency was cutting off funding from hundreds of research projects, many of them working to understand how and why different populations experience different health outcomes. (Some of those grants have since been reinstated after a federal judge ruled in June that they had been illegally canceled.) The mixing of politics and scientific justifiability goes back even to Trump's first term. In 2019, apparently in deference to lobbying from anti-abortion groups, the White House pressured the NIH to restrict research using human fetal tissue—prompting the agency to notify researchers that securing new funds for any projects involving the material would be much more difficult. Human fetal tissue could be used in some cases, 'when scientifically justifiable.' But to meet that bar, researchers needed to argue their case in their proposals, then hope their projects passed muster with an ethics advisory board. In the end, that board rejected 13 of the 14 projects it reviewed. 'They assembled a committee of people for whom nothing could be scientifically justified,' a former NIH official, who worked in grants at the time of the policy change, told me. 'I remember saying at the time, 'Why can't they just tell us they want to ban fetal-tissue research? It would be a lot less work.'' The NIH's 2019 restriction on human-fetal-tissue research felt calamitous at the time, one NIH official told me. Six years later, it seems rather benign. Even prior to the change in policy, human fetal tissue was used in only a very small proportion of NIH-funded research. But broad restrictions on gathering gender data, or conducting studies that take race or ethnicity into account, could upend most research that collects information on people—amounting to a kind of health censorship of the sort that Bhattacharya has promised to purge. The insistence that 'scientifically justifiable' research will be allowed to continue feels especially unconvincing in 2025, coming from an administration that has so often and aggressively been at odds with conventional appraisals of scientific merit. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of HHS, has been particularly prone to leaning on controversial, biased, and poorly conducted studies, highlighting only the results that support his notions of the truth, while ignoring or distorting others. During his confirmation hearing, he cited a deeply flawed study from a journal at the margins of the scientific literature as proof that vaccines cause autism (they don't); in June, he called Alzheimer's a kind of diabetes (it's not); this month, he and his team justified cutting half a billion dollars from mRNA-vaccine research by insisting that the shots are more harmful than helpful (they're not), even though many of the studies they cited to back their claims directly contradicted them. Kennedy, it seems, 'can't scientifically justify any of his positions,' Jake Scott, an infectious-disease physician at Stanford, who has analyzed Kennedy's references to studies, told me. Bhattacharya's call for a full review of NIH research and training is predicated on an impossible, and ironic, standard. Scientists are being asked to prove the need for demographic variables that long ago justified their place in research—by an administration that has yet to show it could ever do the same.
