Several things bother me about Revivogen:

1)  It contains all those fatty acids;  I wonder what they think is the
purpose of those?  GLA is *supposed* to inhibit 5AR, but what about
the others?  Worse, the unsaturated fatty acids (the two linolenic acids
and the linoleic acid, and possibly the SP extract) are very susceptible
to oxidation, yet they have no antioxidant in the product to protect them
(the tocopherol acetate doesn't serve this function).

2)  The pyridoxine hydrochloride continues to be an issue for me.  Most
of us in this newsgroup are aware of the study that found that the
pyridoxine form applied to tissues *increased* DHT, but the pyridoxal
form *decreased* DHT levels.  I'm still amazed that Revivogen would use
the "wrong" form of the vitamin.  When Farrel questioned them about this
a while back, their answer was a rather lame, "Well, we've found that the
product as a whole works".  This is not good enough for me!  I want to know
if they were aware of that study when they were designing the product, and
if so, why did they take a chance by using the "wrong" form?  If they were
unaware of the study, why didn't they know something the rest of us knew,
and why do they *continue* to use the "wrong" form?

3)  Probably the one thing that bothers me the most is the inclusion
of the tocopherol acetate in the formula.  I can't see any possible
function for this ingredient.  Moreover, if they are under the mistaken
belief that this is serving as an antioxidant for the fatty acids, then this
would cast doubt for me on the entire product.  If they are this clueless
about tocopherol acetate, then I can't help but wonder what other
mistakes they've made in the formulation and production of the product.

The bottom line is that Revivogen costs almost five times as much as
Crinagen, has lots of fatty acids that are probably unstable, has the
"wrong" form of B6, and has a ridiculously ineffective form of vitamin E.

So far, I'll have to vote for Crinagen as probably being the better product.