2young2retire
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 163
fred the troll lol/
I guess I have to intervene here too. Massaging will do nothing at all for male pattern baldness. How can such nonsense still exist in 2014?
Tom Hagerty might be good-hearted, but he's just a scam artist, a good-hearted scam artist. I think he really does believe in his own BS.
I tried those scalp exercises (when I say I fell for a lot of things) back in 2010, and they did absolutely nothing.
How massaging would help male pattern baldness anyway, how would it make your scalp produce less oil, which is secreted by sebaceous glands under the influence of DHT.
What's going on 2young, your [thing we can't talk about on this forum] isn't working anymore? You need other scams to save your hair? How long before you admit you wasted your time?!
You think this is new? Tom Hagerty posted this online like as soon as the web was available, possibly in 1997.
We're 17 years later it has never helped anyone, no before/after pictures at all, just like every treatment that is not FDA approved.
Oh right, in private forums. Of course. We'll just take your word for it. Congratulations for curing male pattern baldness.
There is, and will never be a cure for male pattern baldness without genetic engineering.
Keep at it and I'm sure you'll get great results. Anyone who thinks that extra blood circulation does nothing for hair regrowth obviously doesn't know much about male pattern baldness.
I tried massaging in a similar way for roughly the same amount of time and my arms, mostly my fingers started to get really sore after a few weeks. I hope that doesn't happen to you. Good luck
It isn't always necessary to go to the level of the gene to tackle disease pathogenesis or phenotypic traits. Most people would consider a hypothetical repeat application drug that normalised expressed protein levels (i.e. PDG2) an effective 'cure'.
The 'study' this 'detumescence therapy' nonsense is based on reads more like a poor undergraduate biology essay. Just count the number of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.
Except that it is not.
A cure in my view, does not need repeatable, nor dependable solutions.
In your opinion.
The term 'cure' is subjective.
If we go into semantics, the dictionary definition of a cure: "to relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition." It matters not if repeated treatments are required.
and fred is for you
It is not an opinion.
The definition of cure is a little ambiguous.
A cure is not a temporary relief. Permanent relief is the implied abstract.
I'm afraid it is.
Precisely.
Again, to talk in hypotheticals: If a topical was to re-grow hair to a norwood 1 state, it does not matter if it needs to be re-applied more often than the responsible protein or receptor replenishes. If symptoms are gone, that qualifies as a functional cure, repeatable or not.
Patients can be cured of cancer but still carry the genes that put them at risk in the first place. The expressed products of a gene can matter more than the gene itself.